HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/01/2000C�
•
Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Torgerson, Carpenter, Craig, Bernth, Meyer, and Colton. Member Gavaldon
was absent.
Staff Present: Stringer, Jones, Eckman, Blandford, Reiff, and Kuch.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the March 16, April 6, and April 20, 2000 Planning
• and Zoning Board Hearings. (CONTINUED)
2. #32-99 Promontory Project Development Plan (CONTINUED)
Discussion Agenda:
3. #19-96B Modification of Standards — Levon's Warehouse
All Consent items were continued.
Project: #19-96B Modification of Standards — Levon's
Warehouse
Project Description: Request to modify three specific sections of the LUC,
more specifically Section 3.5.3(B)(2), 3.5.3(B)(1), and
3.2.2(C)(2)(a). The proposed building is a speculative
office/warehouse building in the CN zoning district.
The property is located south of Hickory Street, west
of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, north of
Hemlock Street and east of the Hickory trail.
Recommendation: Approval of modification request #1. Denial of
40
modification requests #2 and #3.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 1, 2000
Page 2 of 3
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Troy Jones of the Current Planning Department gave a presentation describing the site
shots and explaining the modification requests. He stated that staff would be supporting
the modification request #1. Prior to the hearing, Troy Jones, Paul Eckman (Assistant
City Attorney), and the applicant examined some of the issues surrounding the
modification requests #2 and #3. They discovered that modification request #3 could be
avoided by adjusting the site area of the PDP, so the #3 request was withdrawn by the
applicant. The modification request #2 was found to be arguable within the code
language and Mr. Eckman did not feel the modification was necessary due to the
multiple interpretations of the code, so the applicant withdrew modification request #2.
Public Comment:
►rNoTir
Discussion:
Member Craig asked if there would be an east/west sidewalk in front of the new building
and if the sidewalk connection would be made directly to the new building.
Troy Jones responded that there would be an east/west sidewalk in front of the building
and the connection of sidewalks between the two buildings would be made at a 90
degree angle.
Member Craig asked for clarification of the location of Hemlock Street.
Troy Jones pointed out the location of Hemlock Street on the vicinity map. He also
described the road material at each section (i.e. paved, gravel, or dirt).
Member Craig asked if the applicant would be responsible for the road improvements if
necessary in the future.
Tim Blandford responded that within the Development Agreement, the applicant would
be responsible to escrow funds for 10 years for road improvements on the property
frontage that may become necessary in the future.
Paul Eckman asked if the applicant was in agreement to the escrow of funds. Mr.
Eckman restated that the applicant was sitting in the audience and he was in agreement
with the escrow.
Member Carpenter asked if it was a normal occurrence for the applicant to change the
site boundaries to avoid the Land Use Code requirements.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes •
June 1,2000
. Page 3 of 3
Dave Stringer, Interim Planning Director, stated that it did not happen very often, but it
was allowed.
Paul Eckman explained the language in the code allowing the change.
Member Carpenter moved to approve the modification request #1 with the
findings of fact stated in the staff report.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Torgerson voting in the negative.
Other Business:
None
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
L