Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/08/1995L Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard 11 Chairman: Rene Clements Phone: 221-0406 11 Vice Chairman: Jan Cottier Phone 221-3953 11 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rene Clements at 6:30 p.m. Board Members present included Gary Carnes, Rene Clements, Jan Cottier, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker. Members Bell and Fontane were absent. Staff Present included Blanchard, Olt, Vosburg, Eckman, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Deines, Herzig, Ludwig. Agenda Review: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, reviewed the continued discussion agenda items from April 24th: 16. #1-9313 Ruby Tuesday at Shopko PUD - Final 16. #45-94A Bridgefield PUD, Phase I - Final 17. #8-95 Glenmoor Property Rezoning (Continued) 18. #11-95 Milan PUD - Preliminary and Final Ruby Tuesday at Shopko PUD - Final. #1-93B Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval with the following conditions. 1. The red neon tube lighting proposed to be located under the wood trim cornice around the building be deleted. 2. The standard final approval condition with regards to final utility plans and development agreement with the Engineering Department. Member Walker was also concerned with the satellite dish on the roof and the screening of the dish. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Olt replied it had been looked at, only according to size of the dish, and building the wall up to screen the satellite dish did not seem appropriate and would make the building out of scale. Member Walker asked about the possibility of putting the dish on the ground. Mr. Olt replied that could be discussed. Member Strom asked for color samples of the color scheme. Mr. Olt passed a sample of the color scheme to the Board Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing Ruby Tuesday gave the applicants presentation stating they were there for only one issue and that was the red neon band around the building. Mr. Ward clarified the issue of the satellite dish stating it was a solid black, perforated dish. He stated the problem with putting it in a screened area in the rear of the building was that the dish would not function properly. Mr. Ward also felt because of the elevation of the site, the dish would not be as visible from College Avenue. Mr. Ward stated the applicant was proposing a neon highlight that was not large and was recessed into a three inch revel in the building. Mr. Ward presented slides of other buildings in Fort Collins with neon highlights. Mr. Ward also presented to the Board a photo of a Ruby Tuesday Restaurant showing the neon highlight at night. Mr. Ward asked the Board to take an objective look at whether a subtle neon highlight would really be a major detraction from the building. Member Walker asked about the total lighting on the building. Mr. Ward stated that there would be the two lighting elements shown and also some small ground lights for pedestrian lighting. The ground lights are an option. Member Walker asked if they would shine on the building. Mr. Ward replied yes they would light the base of the building. Member Carnes found the lighting on the awnings more objectionable than a reset neon highlight. He felt that both elements of lighting was too much. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Ward replied changes in the lighting were not an option. The applicants were under the assumption that the only issue was the neon tubing. He stated the applicant's could not make the meeting due to weather back east. Mr. Ward stated that every restaurant that has been approved in the area for the past 4 or 5 years has had some type of goose -neck fixture that lights the awning. He felt that the applicants would not trade off the awning highlights for the sake of the neon tube. Member Cottier asked about the photo and that the photo showed the goose -neck fixtures on only part of the awnings; and, the elevations she received showed the fixtures on the entire building. Mr. Ward responded that was correct. Member Cottier asked about the note on the elevations regarding optional lighting and what would surface mounted up and down lights be. • Mr. Ward replied they would be wall -washers, similar to the type at the base of the building. Member Strom asked Mr. Ward to explain the color scheme being passed around and what were the colors being used. Mr. Ward reviewed the building and awning colors with the Board. Member Strom asked about the screening of the rooftop features. It was not clear on the plans how the screens would fit with the elevation. It was also not clear if there was any screening on the east side of the building. Mr. Ward replied that the screening was dashed in on the elevations. The screening would be at the height of the parapet wall and would wrap around the back of the building at that height also. It would be set back from the parapet so there is relief in the building as you view it from the street. There would be a second layer of screening that would hide the rooftop equipment. It is a metal decking that would be painted to match the darker color on the parapet. Member Strom asked if it would wrap around the east side of the building? • Mr. Ward replied it would. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 4 CITIZEN INPUT None. Member Walker was concerned with the amount of lighting on the building and was all of the lighting necessary. Member Walker was also concerned with the large satellite. He suggested a study be done on what to do with satellite dishes. He was not convinced on how to deal with satellite dishes. Member Strom asked if the existing Shopko is in compliance with the approved PUD plan. He asked about all the storage containers on the east side of the building and also the outdoor sales in the parking lot on the west side. Mr. Olt responded that the containers on the east side of the building have been put there to deal with an addition that is presently planned on the west side of the building. Mr. Olt would pursue what the purpose of those containers are and how long they would be there. They were not planned as permanent fixtures on the PUD. With regards to the west parking lot garden shop; it is approved with the Shopko PUD. Mr. Olt has visited the site and felt it was in compliance with the PUD. Member Strom asked if that was something someone would have to file a complaint on to get cleared up. Mr. Olt replied that staff would check into it and get back to the Board at Friday's worksession. Member Strom questioned the architectural compatibility with the neighborhood. He did not see anything in the neighborhood close to this color scheme or building materials. Mr. Olt replied that the applicant has a corporate image that they would like to maintain and staff has done its best to try and encourage the concept of the Shopko PUD. There is a note on the Shopko PUD that architecturally and material wise there would be similarities. However, we are looking at a building that is 1/20 the size of Shopko and the colors and building materials did not lend themselves to this facility. Staff felt that there was not a lot of open arm reception to the way Shopko has finalized. Staff felt that we did not want to continue that appearance. Definitely from the standpoint of colors. Staff felt this was appropriate given what has occurred and felt that it would make the appearance of that area better. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 5 Member Strom commented that we were way overdue in developing some standards on how we want design to work with shopping centers. Member Cottier asked how many pad sites were remaining on this PUO. Mr. Olt replied there was one other pad site just east of this that could contain between a 17 and 20,000 s.f. building. Chairman Clements asked if staff felt the up lights were a little much along with the other two elements of lighting. Mr. Olt replied yes, and staff is not supportive of the neon lighting. The goose -neck lighting fixtures were typical in the area and were appropriate. On the optional lighting, staffs preference would be neither and does to some degree concern us. • Mr. Ward explained the optional lighting on the building. Mr. Olt explained Options A and B with regards to lighting. Member Walker commented on accommodating corporate styles and concurred with Member Strom with his concern about design standards for shopping centers. Chairman Clements asked the applicant to respond to the issue of too much lighting on the building. Mr. Ward responded that the photo the Board is looking at is a promotional photo and was lit up intentionally for the photo. Mr. Ward replied that the restaurant is not intended to be lit up like a professional photographers shooting studio. The lighting is less and the lighting is low wattage bulbs. Mr. Ward once again compared this building to those of Applebee's and Black Eyed Pea. Mr. Ward asked for fairness in not writing new standards for lighting tonight. John Lapress, Ruby Tuesday representative, commented on the photograph and that it should not be used to evaluate the lighting. He also stated that all the bulbs are recessed will into the fixtures. Member Walker commented on the function of lighting and was it for signage or for • safety, and where do we draw the line as far as making an advertisement statement. Member Walker asked about Options A and B and would we just get one or the other and not both. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Ward replied yes, just one. Member Cottier asked when the last time we allowed neon was. Mr. Olt replied Applebee's has neon and that was about two years old. Kenny Rogers was negotiated out of having neon. Mr. Olt gave other examples of neon lighting. Member Walker moved for approval of Ruby Tuesday at Shopko Final with the staff recommendations, that would delete the neon highlights and the standard final PUD condition. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Walker concurred with the staff in that we are moving away from the neon highlights. He did feel that the lighting standards set by other approvals was not out of character with what Ruby Tuesday was proposing. Member Walker suggested that more detail with regards to lighting be provided and would be helpful. Member Carnes commented on the lighting, and the colors of the building. He encouraged the staff to have more information on colors and lighting options. He felt that with the elevation, it would be exposed on all sides. Member Strom stated that he has gone along on many occasions with these, however, tonight he would not be supporting the motion. The criteria is not as strong as he would like, but is strong enough to say that this does not meet them. He cited All Development Criteria 2.7. He felt that the colors of the building have no relationship with the Shopko PUD. He did not agree that this was blending into the neighborhood. Member Cottier commented on the Shopko building and that we do not want to replicate Shopko. She felt this building would look better than if it looked like Shopko. She stated that with the Superstore guidelines, we would not be seeing another Shopko. She felt that would go a long way in solving this type of problem. The motion was approved 3-2 with Members Carnes and Strom voting no. Bridaefield PUD, Phase I - Final. #45-95A Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation of the project stating that all eight conditions of preliminary approval have been addressed and staff was recommending approval with two conditions: 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 7 The standard final PUD condition regarding final utility plans and development agreement with the Engineering Department. 2. The design and resulting mitigation measures for storm drainage facilities, on both the Phase I and Phase II portions of Bridgefield PUD, shall be approved by the Stormwater Utility and the Natural Resources Division prior to approval of the utility plans. Also, the utility plans must be reviewed and approved (with signatures) by the New Mercer and Larimer County Canal No. 2 ditch companies prior to final utility plan approval by the City of Fort Collins. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department discussed the memo the Board received April 20 regarding street standards on this project. Mr. Herzig went over the street layouts in the project and discussed the hammerhead locations and the variances that the applicant was asking for. • Member Walker asked based on his analysis and based on the memo, the only thing that has not been resolved was the one-way street. Mr. Herzig replied that was correct. Member Walker asked about the garage entrances, with the setbacks three feet from the curb. Member Walker asked what units that would be. Mr. Herzig pointed out the 7 units he was concerned about. Mr. Herzig added that the intention was to have 27 feet of drive through rather than 20 feet, plus an additional 7 feet for each of the parking bays on the south side. Member Strom asked Mr. Olt to review the eight conditions of preliminary approval. Member Cottier asked about the Natural Resource conditions, and if something would happen and the purchase of the other 9 acres falls through, would they have to re -look at the conditions. Did he feel 100% sure the purchase would go through. Mr. Olt responded that he was not 100% sure. The conditions deal more with the effects on Phase II and the canal. He felt there was no danger in approving Phase I • regardless of the conditions. Member Carnes asked about the retention on the property next to this and if the City did not pick the property up, would it have any effect on the phase they were looking at now in terms of where the retention would be located. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Olt replied no. The detention for Phase I will occur on the down side of the ditch whether the City owns it, or whether the applicant owns the property. What it would do would be to reconfigure Phase II. Member Carnes asked about the surface on the pedestrian walkway and recalled previous discussions regarding the sidewalk and was it a sidewalk on the outside or was it a painted strip? Mr. Herzig gave a brief history from preliminary, and that the Board had approved the roadway, Raccoon Circle, to be 16 feet wide of asphalt paved area with a 4 foot additional to the outside that would be a hard surface, which staff understood to be concrete; and, which shows a different material that would be used as a walkway in lieu of requiring a walkway in front of these houses. The idea the developer wanted to use that with, was to encourage walking along the natural areas that border this site. To provide the feeling of being with the natural area. Mr. Herzig also asked the Board to clarify whether the walkway should be compacted gravel, as the developer has interpreted, or something more like concrete that would be a maintainable surface. Mr. Jon Prouty, Lagunitas Company, applicant on the project handed out materials to the Board including drawings of the project and other informational material to follow in his presentation. Mr. Prouty gave the applicant presentation and stated that the open space purchase had been approved by City Council after a very successful negotiation. Member Walker asked about what the hard surface would be around Raccoon Circle? Mr. Prouty responded that it would not be asphalt, the final conclusion should rest with Engineering and Natural Resources. Obviously the compatibility with the natural area is one consideration, and the maintenance and safety is another. Member Walker asked if the intent was for it to be part of the street to meet minimum street standard. Mr. Prouty replied that the 4 feet would be used in certain safety considerations to provide 2 10-foot lanes and passage for fire equipment. Member Walker asked about the one-way on Raccoon Circle and was it to minimize auto traffic use? 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Prouty replied that the experts in the Engineering Department would know what would be most suitable. Member Carnes asked about the alternative walkway and where was the other pedestrian way. Mr. Prouty replied that the alternative was the alternative to the conventional sidewalk that would be on the opposite side of the street along the house frontages. Member Carnes asked if at preliminary, Mr. Prouty showed the pedestrian walkway on the interior of the circle. Mr. Prouty replied no. Member Carnes commented that this was a very unsafe arrangement for children. • Member Carnes asked for Mr. Prouty's and staffs views of the safety of that innovative feature. Mr. Prouty responded that the one-way would provide for safety in that regard, and a 15 mph speed limit, which is not uncommon in denser communities in Fort Collins is highly desirable. The primary safety element inherent in this plan was the extreme low density of the neighborhood with single family houses fronting on a single loaded street. Mr. Olt replied that from staffs standpoint was that at the time of preliminary, staff felt there were safety concerns and staff did not support the sidewalk on the outside and staff recommended that a sidewalk be placed internally along the front yards on the inside of the street. The approval of the Board was in character with what you are seeing now. Member Carnes commented that he was not happy with the plan. Chairman Clements recalled that part of the reason that the majority of the Board voted on the plan before us was we are trying to reduce the amount of asphalt and hard surface in this urban density neighborhood. Having a sidewalk in front of a house does not guarantee that kids are not going to play out in the street. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Association, stated their Association supported the final approval of Bridgefield PUD, Phase I. Ms. Smith commended all the people who have worked on this proposal and also the hard work that went into the City acquisition of the open space. Ms. Smith asked for approval of Bridgefield PUD. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 10 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED Chairman Clements asked about the street lighting issue and how would the experiment in Indian Hills development impact this development. Mr. Prouty replied that the Indian Hills experiment was not occurring in the Indian Hills development, but on the existing residence that is being used for sales and construction office. This project was designed to meet City standards in all respects. Member Walker supported the one-way on Raccoon Circle and would serve to mitigate the safety concerns. Member Walker moved for a granting of the Variance of the three streets that are dead -ended in a non-standard method. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Walker moved for approval of Bridgefield PUD, Phase I, Final with the two conditions as listed by staff. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Carnes asked for a friendly amendment that the sidewalks on Raccoon Circle be re -configured to be on the interior of the project. Member Walker did not accept the amendment feeling it is a workable proposal. Member Walker asked if there was a posted speed limit on Raccoon Circle. Mr. Prouty suggested a 15 mph speed limit. Tom Vosburg, Transportation Department stated that the basic speed limit that is applied across the city is 25 mph. Mr. Vosburg thought it would be possible to post a lower speed limit. Member Walker added a condition of approval that the speed limit be posted as 15 mph throughout the development. Member Strom accepted as the second. Member Carnes would also like to see speed bumps also on Raccoon Circle. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Vosburg replied that speed bumps were often thought of as a traffic calming measure, but create serious problems for emergency vehicles. It is not a practice that they would not want to set a precedent, even with this experimental development. Mr. Vosburg did not think there would be a speed problem on Raccoon Circle. It is a very narrow street and is curviinear. Chairman Clements asked if the motion included the plan as is with the one-way. Member Walker responded that was correct. Chairman Clements commented that she thought that this was an innovative project and was excited about a project that reduces the amount of asphalt and pavement put in this development. Member Strom commented on the safety issue and that he did not feel that sidewalks • on the interior of the project would not make a difference and keep children out of the street. Member Walker thought that the speed on Raccoon Circle would be would be self - enforcing by the residents that live in the development. Member Cottier hoped that there would be a channel that the results of this development would get back to other developers showing this type of development can work. The motion was approved 5-0. Milan PUD - Preliminary and Final. #11-95 Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project recommending approval including a variance to Criteria 4 of the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Uses Point Chart. It should also include the standard engineering condition that was not listed in the staff report. Mr. Ludwig noted two changes to the plan. One on the landscape plan, the 20 foot setback on North College has been changed. There would now be a 10-foot grass strip • between the proposed curb on North College, a 4 foot sidewalk and a 6 foot planter. The pedestrian access on College would be improved with this change. Mr. Ludwig noted the other change being on the plan where the City is no longer receiving a 20- foot dedication for future right-of-way. The Engineering Departments analysis could not require that at this time due to the change of use not causing that for mitigation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 12 Member Walker asked why they received the maximum score for energy conservation. Mr. Ludwig replied that they had chose method 2 for obtaining energy conservation points. Member Walker asked how they achieved the points Mr. Ludwig replied that it was noted on the site plan how they claimed the points and that the existing building there would be remodeled. Mr. Ludwig also noted that the energy conservation measures listed in the LDGS is where the applicant commits to those; and, the reason they are listed on the site plan is that they are incorporated when building inspection issues the building permit. Member Walker asked about the signage on the project. Mr. Ludwig replied that the signage would be regulated by the City Sign Code Member Carnes asked about the points claimed for joint parking Mr. Ludwig replied that staffs interpretation of the joint parking requirement was that it was providing joint access that it shares with the former Gabby's restaurant to the south. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, representing the Milan's, gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Rutherford explained the joint access and parking on the site and surrounding area. CITIZEN INPUT None. Member Cottier asked about the dumpster on the site and asked about a trash enclosure. Mr. Rutherford replied that there would not be any repair on the site and is just strictly auto sales. He assumed there would be a small amount of trash. Member Cottier stated that if the dumpster is to remain, it should have a trash enclosure. Mr. Milan stated that he did not have a problem with making a trash enclosure. Member Cottier asked if two street trees on College meet the street tree standards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Ludwig replied that was what was requested by the City Forester and the staff person assigned to the North College Corridor Plan felt the landscaping was adequate for North College. Mr. Ludwig added that it does meet the street tree standards. Member Cottier thought that by standard parking lot regulations, if this project was not a PUD, would have to comply with three street trees and 6% interior landscaping. She felt that a PUD should get more than just the minimum requirement. Member Cottier asked that another street tree be placed on College Avenue. She also felt that the two dead corners should be landscaped in lieu of the 6% interior landscaping. Member Cottier asked if the southern side of the access to the site (Gabby's corner) would be improved with this project with curb. Mr. Rutherford replied that the area that creates the drive -way into the Gabby's property, which is on the south side of the Milan property, and that is the way it will be • developed. Member Cottier appreciated the notes on the plan that no vehicles would be placed on the grass, displayed outside the parking lot, and no vehicles on raised racks. She would also like added as a note that the hoods would not remain open. Member Cottier asked about the right-of-way, and it was her understanding that the full 20 feet could not be demanded because of the impacts and because of the parking of the vehicles overhanging the right-of-way. She thought there would be some merit to getting what ever right-of-way was possible there because that was better than nothing. It was her understanding that the applicant was willing to give the right-of-way. Mr. Herzig of the Engineering Department stated that staff did not see this as an ultimate improvement where there has been a tear down of the building, assemblage of properties and some major impact created. We have not been requiring right-of-way dedication to the ultimate arterial standards along these locations along North College or any place else in town over the past few years. Therefore, in this situation, staff does not see an impact created by this use to justify the City's requiring dedication. Voluntary dedication would be accepted. He did not think in any way the City could ask them to dedicate because it could be construed as a requirement. • Member Cottier asked what Mr. Herzig saw as a regular standard improvement of North College and how do we get right-of-way. Mr. Herzig replied if there was a major development such as Country Club Corners, that is a major assemblage of land and is creating a major impact in the area and that is where we can require the dedication. We are doing that when there is a tear down of the building or two or three buildings being put together as a development. Mr. Herzig Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 14 also referenced Auto Zone as a new constructed building and that the City did require dedication. Those are the types of projects that we can get that for the future widening. Mr. Herzig added that the future widening would be done as volumes increase, a possible capital project, or as redevelopment takes place. Mr. Herzig went over some problems in widening North College, curbs trapping water because of the road being too flat, and drainage. Member Cottier commented that if an applicant is willing to dedicate right-of-way, she did not understand why we did not take it. Mr. Milan responded that he was not willing to dedicate it, he thought that it was a requirement that the PUD would not be granted if he did not do the dedication. Member Cottier asked if the landscaping would be put on top of the existing asphalt as we have seen done in some cases on North College, or will it all be taken up. Mr. Rutherford replied the asphalt would all be taken up to make sure the site drains properly. Member Carnes questioned whether the right-of-way was a public right-of-way on the Milan property, or was it a right-of-way that was being granted to a particular property owner. If we are to give points, we need to have some reassurance that this will remain a public access. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied it would not be a public way. It would be a recipricle easement agreement between the two parties that share the access. He has not seen the agreement. He did see the attempted parking agreement and did not feel that was legally enforceable and suggested that if they were to utilize that method of gaining points, that they draft a different agreement that could be legally enforced. Mr. Milan stated it was a dedicated access to a land owner behind the property they own. Mr. Milan stated the accesses they were giving was the use for Gabby's parking lot. They would be entitled to put a curb all the way from the fire hydrants to the end of Gabby's building and they would not be able to use it as an access. They were not receiving any points for the rear access. Mr. Milan added that Gabby's does have access from their entryway to their parking lot. Member Carnes asked if it was specifically stated what the access is to, the property to the south, or the parking to the property to the south. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 15 Mr. Ludwig replied not there was not. Essentially, the maximum amount of points they can be awarded for joint parking, is 6 points; and, by providing and maintaining the joint access that already exists to Gabby's, staff felt 3 points was appropriate to be awarded for this project. Member Carnes would like that added to the site plan. Mr. Blanchard stated that could be added as a condition of approval. Member Strom commented that if they change the access that is recorded on a PUD plan, they would have to come back to the City to modify it. In addition, the subdivision plat shows an easement and he assumed that the easement had to be granted to someone, either to public use or a neighboring property. Mr. Eckman replied that it would not be dedicated to the public, but a jointly granted • easement reciprocally back and forth between the two property owners. His concern is that if the owner of the Gabby's site is not a signatory to the subdivision plat, they would not be bound by any language on the subdivision plat. His concern was that we have a permanent recipricle easement between the two properties, that runs with the land and as a condition of this development, so it cannot be revoked by either party later. Mr. Rutherford responded that he believed that to be true for the Milan property, and the land east of the Milan property. He was willing to put a note on the site plan that this PUD would not bar access from the parking lot on the west side of the Gabby's building. Mr. Eckman replied that would be helpful in binding this property, but was there a need to obtain an easement from the Gabby's property. Mr. Rutherford stated that Mr. Milan feels that the amount of parking that is needed for his business is provided by the spots in front of the sales office. He is granting it to the neighbors and does not need it from the neighbors. Member Cottier commented that joint access is relevant, but we would like to consolidate access where ever possible. If we are providing access to Gabbys, fine, but Gabby's does have another access to the south of their property by which they can • get to their parking lot. Member Cottier felt that having joint parking was of no concern, and she did not see it as a concern for this project because we are varying the points anyway. Member Cottier did feel it relevant to say that access be maintained to the property to the east. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 16 Mr. Rutherford replied that was already deeded in the property. Also on the subdivision plat, an access easement has been dedicated to that property. Member Cottier commended the applicant on the improvements he is making to the property. She stated that she is holding out for the minimum standards and would still like to see another street tree. She also saw it appropriate to landscape the two corners in lieu of the 6% interior landscaping. Mr. Milan commented on the landscaping on the east side of the property stating it would have landscaping, gravel, bushes, and a curb around it. Member Cottier stated that the plans do not show any landscaping on the east. Mr. Ludwig stated that it shows gravel under the split -rail fence on the east. Mr. Milan stated that he would be willing to landscape the east boundary with gravel and bushes in lieu of the 6% interior landscaping. Member Cottier stated she was suggesting the two corners and leaving the east gravel. Mr. Milan stated that the North College Corridor Plan would be implemented soon and he would not have dead corner requirements with that plan. Member Cottier stated that the design standards for the North College Plan would be at least minimum requirements, which are the parking lot requirements. A use -by -right in the North College Plan would have to comply with the design standards when adopted. Member Walker stated that this was not really a parking lot in some respects and it seemed reasonable to him. He did not think he would go along with that requirement. Member Cottier stated that in her conversation with Zoning, the car dealers are held to the parking lot standards. Chairman Clements commented that she thought they would be going too far to make requirements that would keep Mr. Milan from parking his cars in the corners. She felt that Mr. Milan had made more improvements than required at this point. She was happy with the plan before them. Member Strom concurred with Chairman Clements. Member Walker moved for approval of the variance from the point chart. Member Strom seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 17 Member Carnes, for the record, wanted confirmation that this applicant would grant an easement to the property owner to the south and would be placed on the plat. Mr. Milan stated he did not think that could be done due to the access already being granted to someone else. Mr. Eckman asked if the property owner to the east already had an easement on that drive -way? Mr. Milan replied yes. Mr. Eckman asked if Mr. Milan was concerned with, as the surface owner, in granting an additional easement to the property owner to the south, the property owner to the east may claim that would unreasonably burdens his presently existing easement right- • of -way such that he would have no power to grant it. Mr. Milan replied that was correct. Mr. Eckman replied he agreed and Mr. Milan would need the consent of the property owner to the east and suggested a conditional motion. Discussion ensued by all parties on the easement and access to the property. Member Cottier suggested that the joint parking points be deleted and the variance be granted for 46 out of 48% for the project. Member Strom was concerned that if Gabby's were to redevelop then this access would have the opportunity to close the other access. Mike Herzig commented that the State is also another entity that will review the access and they will have to apply for an access permit. If Gabby's were to redevelop, it is likely that the State will want to close one of the accesses, and the access on the south side of Gabby's would most likely be closed. Mr. Rutherford stated that he could not say whether it was an exclusive easement, it is • in the applicant's deed for an access to College Avenue for the people to the east. Member Strom suggested an amendment to the motion with a condition to the effect that if it is possible, if there are not legal limitations on doing so, that it be a condition of this approval that the access easement also be granted to the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 18 property to the south. If that turns out not t condition that this owner, the applicant, will physically. Member Walker agreed to the amendment. The motion was approved 5-0. o be possible, he would like to make a not block the access to the south Member Cottier moved for approval of the Milan PUD, Preliminary and Final with the following conditions. The standard condition relating to the development agreement; that a third street tree be added to the frontage on College Avenue; that if a dumpster should be on the property, it shall be in an enclosure; and, that a note be added to the plan that car hoods will not be left open as a method of advertising. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.