Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/28/1988PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 28, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at approximately 6:34 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, San- ford Kern, Bernie Strom, Sharon Brown and Jim Klataske. Member David Edwards was absent. Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Deb- bie deBesche, Ken Waido, Mike Herzig, Jim Faulhaber, Rick Ensdorff, and Kayla Ballard. Legal representative was Steve Roy. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 2 - Spring Creek Professional Park, Bidgs. B, G, H, K, b L, Final, #143-80I; Item 3 - Spring Creek Professional Park, Amended Preliminary and Final, /143-80J; Item 4 -Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, Fourth Filing, Final, 053-850; Item 5 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD 8th Filing, CommerCentre, Preliminary and Final, 153-85K; Item 6 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, Parcel U, Preliminary, A53-85M; Item 7 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 6th Filing, Final, #53-85N; Item 8 - AutoAvenue Mall PUD, Preliminary, /32-84B; Item 9-Poudre Plains Subdivision, Final, /72-87A; Item 10 - First Replat of Fairbrooke Subdivision, Third Filing, Preliminary and Final, i65-82Q; Item 11 -1209 North College PUD, One Year Extension Request, #14-84; Item 12 - Elementary School 1990, Special Review, Al2-88; Item 13 - Resolution PZ 88-1, Vacation of Easements in Foothills Park Subdivision, /78-76; Item 14 -Resolution PZ 88-2, Vacation of Easements in Warren Farms 1st Filing, i53-84E; Item 15 -Union Pacific South Third No. 1, Annexation and Zoning, a15-88,A; Item 16 -Union Pacific South Third No. 2, Annexation and Zoning, /16-88,A; Item 17 -Union Pacific South First, Annexation and Zoning, /18-88,A; Item 18 -Union Pacific South Second, Annexation and Zoning, /19-88,A; Item 19 -Union Pacific Fourth, Annexation and Zoning, #20-88,A; Item 20 - Downtown Dis- trict, #11-88; Item 21 - North Lemay Plaza PUD, Final, A57-87A; Item 22 -Centre for Advanced Technology, Parcel J (Lifecare), Master Plan, 153-85P; Item 23 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, Parcel J, Phase 1, (Lifecare Center), Preliminary, /53-85L; and Item 24 -Ricketts Subdivision, Prelimi- nary, 19-88. Mr. Peterson informed the Board that Item 1, Minutes of the February 22, 1988 meeting have been removed from the agenda and will be continued to the April 25, 1988 regular meeting. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there was any member of Staff, the Board or the audience that would like to request an item be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Planning and Zoning Mi. es March 28, 1988 Mr. Leonard Ewy, 4413 Timberline, requested that Items 15 and 16 be pulled for discussion. Mr. Freeman Smith, Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, requested that Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 be pulled. He stated that he would like an over- view of these particular sites. Member Brown stated that she had a potential conflict with Items 6, 7, 11, and 14. Member Brown moved for approval of Items 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 19. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion for approval car- ried 6-0. Member Strom moved to approve Items 11 and 14. Member Kern seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 5-0. Item 4 - 153-850 - CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD, FOURTH FILING - FINAL Item 5 - A53-85K - CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD 8TH FILING, CORNER - CENTRE - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Item 6 - i53-85M - CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD, PARCEL J - PRELIMI- NARY Item 7 - f53-85N - CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD, 6TH FILING - FINAL Member Brown stated that she would abstain from discussion and voting of Items 6 and 7 due to a potential conflict. Members Crews and Kern stated that they would abstain from discussion and voting of Item 4 due to a potential conflict. Freeman Smith stated that he had no specific objection, he only requested an overview. He stated that it would be a benefit to see it in overview since it was coming in at different times by either CSURF or Everitt. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, described each of the proposed items and showed where they were located using the Master Plan slide. Mr. Smith asked how the entrance and parking was reconciled between Parcel U and X. Mr. Shepard stated that there will be a common entrance off Research Boule- vard. This will be a public access that will be a dedicated right-of-way that will serve both sites. Within the site itself, there will be a vehicu- lar connection between the two parking lots. Mr. Smith asked if there is to be a walkway between Parcel T and U. Mr. Shepard stated that the preliminary plan shows a connection on the south half of parcels T and U. -2- Planning and Zonins nutes March 28, 1988 • • Mr. Smith asked about businesses that will occupy Parcel T having hazardous waste. He was assured that the owner would not rent to anyone having hazardous waste by City Council. In a market-driven/client relationship, it may be that part of those businesses may involve hazardous waste and, if so, would there be separate plumbing and sewer facilities for these busi- nesses. Mr. Shepard stated that before a building permit can be finaled and a cer- tificate of occupancy can be issued, any hazardous material would have to be approved either by the Fire Authority or the industrial pre-treatment department of Water and Sewer, if any hazardous waste is to be put into the sanitary sewer system. Member Brown moved for approval of Items 5. Member Strom seconded. Motion was approved 6-0. Member Brown moved for approval of Item 4. Member Strom seconded. Motion was approved 4-0. Member Kern moved for approval of Items 6 and 7. Member Crews seconded. Motion was approved 5-0. Item 15 - /15-88,A - UNION PACIFIC SOUTH THIRD NO. 1 ANNEXATION AND ZONING Item 16 - #16-88,A - UNION PACIFIC SOUTH THIRD NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING • Ken Waido stated that these two items deal with the same property. He gave a description of these two items and stated that staff is recommending approval of both annexation and zoning requests. Robert Kopitzke, 1917 Harmony Drive, asked if the decision had already been made to annex this area or is this a formality. Chairwoman O'Dell replied that this is a recommendation to City Council to annex this property. Mr. Waido stated that the City follows the annexation policies in the Intergovernmental Agreement with the County. These policies indicate that the City will annex any and all properties either when they petition for annexation as a voluntary petition or become eligible for annexation as an enclave. This particular petition is a voluntary petition by the Union Pacific Railroad. This meeting is a required public hearing in order to annex a piece of property. Mr. Kopitzke stated that he felt the City has been less than forthright in informing people affected by this change. He questioned the T-Transition zoning and stated that after talking with Mr. Waido, understood that the City initiated this annexation for the purpose of straightening out some boundaries and getting in the tax base. Mr. Waido replied that there are five annexations at this meeting and not • all of them are to be zoned the same. He further explained why these par- ticular zonings were requested. -3- Planning and Zoning Mink. s March 28, 1988 Mr. Kopitzke stated he felt that certain issues were not answered, such as pollution and noise level, and asked who will enforce these concerns. Chairwoman O'Dell reminded Mr. Kopitzke that the Board will only be making recommendations to City Council on annexation and zoning issues. It is not within the power of this Board to close down existing companies if they are violating air quality standards. Mr. Kopitzke stated that he has telephoned several times on these concerns but nothing has been done about it. Mr. Waido stated that the I-L zone is a limited industrial zoning district and it allows light industrial uses. Member Kern stated that he felt Mr. Kopitzke does not want the Board to get rid of the existing problem but questioned the I-L zoning if it will pre- sent a further problem for him and is the existing activity undergoing I-L types of activities. Mr. Waido stated that the present use of the property is a warehouse but that is not the property that is polluting. There are three options for handling the pollution problems but apparently only two were completed. If no response was given from the other two departments, then the third option would be to contact the City Manager. Member Brown asked if it would be worthwhile for the Board to place a PUD condition on these annexations. Mr. Waido replied no because the PUD condition is only a site planning process and there is already a site planning provision in the I-L zone. Member Klataske asked if the property of the existing company is currently in the city. Mr. Waido stated that it is inside the city and zone I-P. Leonard Ewy, 4413 Timberline, stated that the entire proposed area is not currently zoned for industrial. The only part that is zoned for industrial is the existing warehouse and this goes only about 20 feet behind the existing warehouse. He stated that this will be a definite change in land use and will increase train and truck traffic. He stated that he inquired about the proposed landscaping and was told that, so far, there was none proposed. He felt that the neighborhood would become more powerless and property values would decline. He felt this would degrade the neighborhood if these concerns were not addressed and that this proposal is not compa- tible with the neighborhood. Virgil Kline, surrounding resident, stated that he had no problem with the annexation but the concern is what is proposed before it is annexed. He suggested that prior to annexation, plans should be submitted and the neighborhood advised and notified before it is done. He stated he did have a concern with the noise pollution. -4- Planning and Zoninde nutes March 28, 1988 • Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the existing warehouse has submitted plans for expansion of their building. Mr. Waido replied that they have not, at this time. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that it is understood that this will happen in the. future. She asked if it would possible to allow the affected property own- ers to have some input into the site plan. Mr. Waido stated that, under the I-L zone, the Planning Director has the responsibility and authority to approve the site plan. Mr. Peterson suggested that there be an administrative public hearing so the neighborhood can address their concerns. He stated that this hearing would be very similar to the P&Z meeting, which would include neighborhood notification, and would be held with staff. Mr. Kline agreed to the public hearing suggestion. He stated that he would like input prior to the expansion happening. Chairwoman O'Dell stated that the affected property owners, within 500 feet of the proposed use, would be notified prior to the expansion of the build- ing. Mr. Smith stated he felt that it is not encumbent on the City to grant a zoning at the applicant's request. He felt that applicants should be required to go through the LOGS. Mr. Waido stated that there is not always the option to go through the LOGS. Member Kern asked what the difference is if this comes in for any plans as a PUD or under the I-L. Mr. Waido stated that the most substantial differences would be in the timing of the review of the request and who makes the final decision. Depending upon the concerns and what staff felt was applicable to be placer) as a condition of approval through the staff review process in the I-L or through the PUD, there would be no difference. The I-L site plan is approved by staff and the PUD is approved by the Board. Member Strom asked what the difference is between I-P and I-L zones. Mr. Waido replied that the only difference between the two is what the districts are designed for. The I-P zone is like an industrial park setting and the I-L is a more case -by -case basis. They both have the same perfor- mance standards. There is no requirement for a public hearing under the I-P zone. Member Strom asked if there was any way, under an I-L zone, to establish a requirement for an administrative hearing. -5- Planning and Zoning Minutes March 28, 1988 Mr. Peterson stated that there is no absolute requirement for a public hearing for an I-L and I-P site plan. Based upon the Vested Rights legisla- tion, a vested rights hearing is required which, by its nature, a public action. He stated that even though the ordinance does not spell it out, there is a public meeting required. He felt that it would be appropriate to have a meeting with the neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated that he felt these items warrant a complete use of the LDGS. He felt that approval of the zoning by request of the applicant is inappropriate. He suggested that the Board make a PUD requirement on these items. Mr. Ewy concurred with Mr. Smith. He stated that the Board does not have enough authority and there should be some guarantee that a hearing will be held. Member Kern moved to approve Item 15, amended to: 1) change the I-L, Lim- ited Industrial to have a PUD condition; and 2) that a further recommend- ation that a neighborhood meeting be held prior to any consideration before the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Strom seconded. Motion to approve with conditions carried 6-0. Member Kern moved to approve Item 16, amended to: 1) change the I-L, Lim- ited Industrial to have a PUD condition; and 2) that a further recommend- ation that a neighborhood meeting be held prior to any consideration before the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Brown seconded. Motion to approve with conditions carried 6-0. ITEM 20 - 111-88 - DOWNTOWN DISTRICT Mr. Peterson gave a description of the downtown zoning request. He stated that staff's recommendation, after reviewing the Downtown Development Authority's concerns on the adoption of the amendment, is to table this amendment at this time. Components of the Downtown Plan will be presented before the Board at a worksession in May. A set of recommendations of ordi- nance changes will probably be available in Fall of '88. Member Crews asked why the Board is being asked to table this for six or seven months and why it wasn't withdrawn. Mr. Peterson replied that it is the Board's prerogative to decide whether they want to withdraw or table this item. However, at Friday's worksession, the Board did decide to table this item. Craig Howe, representing himself and some partnership interest in the down- town area, stated that he supported either tabling or withdrawing it. He added that from an ownership standpoint, he felt that it was arbitrary and not in the best interest of the downtown area to require a PUD on uses -by - right of certain size when it is not required in other areas. If that approach is going to be adopted, then it should be done on an overall basis. He stated he does not support the recommendation as it exists. Planning and Zoningoutes . March 28, 1988 • Member Strom asked how much of the city is covered by PUD regulations. Mr. Peterson replied that probably well over 1/2 of the city is covered by PUD regulations. Member Strom stated that if a PUD ordinance is attached to the downtown area, it would not be unique to target a limited area of the city - there is already a large area that is covered by PUD regulations. He stated that he did not understand the concern about placing a PUD condition on the downtown area. Mr. Howe stated that the whole thing is use -by -right. He added that an example would be the purchase of the Markley Motors building on College, which is zoned C-Commercial. This requirement would change the zoning of that property. As an example, this building could be demolished and build a two-story building that had uses that were allowable in the C-Commercial zone and would have to meet the parking lot requirements because of the change of use. The uses are by -right, zero lot line building construction is by -right, and there is never rights within that zoning. He stated that when a PUD is required, you have to meet all the PUD requirements which include change of setbacks and privy of use. A financial burden is added. A major change is what you are allowed to do with a property. He asked that when this comes before the Board, will the property owners be notified again? . Mr. Peterson replied that notification will be sent out when it comes before the Board. Member Strom asked if there will be a difference in the amount of fees to develop in a use -by -right as opposed to a PUD. Mr. Peterson stated that he does not believe there will be any difference. Member Strom asked what is the opposition of the proposal by the Downtown Development Authority. Chip Steiner, Director of the Downtown Development Authority, stated that they are not opposed to it but are looking for a way to encourage develop- ment downtown and would like to find a way to ease the process as opposed to laying on additional rules and regulations. The PUD process may not add expense in terms of fees but adds expense in terms of time devoted to get- ting a development through the process. The DDA is looking to find some- thing that directs larger development proposals into the core area. The overlay of a 40,000 square foot requirement is arbitrary because that requirement does not exists anywhere else in the city. Therefore, it would be imposed on one particular neighborhood. This would not encourage devel- opment downtown. The DDA would be willing to bring any proposal that it was involved with, that was over 40,000 square feet, to the P&Z Board as a PUD. The issue is complex and large enough that it requires more study than a one paragraph insertion into the zoning code. -7- Planning and Zoning Mii es March 28, 1988 Mr. Peterson stated that the Downtown Plan is an appropriate place for this study and is ongoing at this time. Member Crews moved to indefinitely table the request to amend the zoning to require a PUD review for significant development projects in the downtown area. Member Kern seconded the motion. Member Strom stated that he would support the motion and would push very hard to see that things go along quickly in terms of studies related to the downtown area. Member Crews and Chairwoman O'Dell stated that they concurred with Member Strom. Motion to table this item carried 6-0. ITEM 21 - f57-87A - NORTH LEMAY PLAZA PUD - FINAL Ted Shepard gave a description and the history of the proposed project. Ric Hattman, Gefroh-Hattman, introduced William Giesenhagen of PDQ, and stated that conditions placed upon this project have been meta There was no public input on this project. Member Brown moved to approve the North Lemay Plaza PUD Final because it met the conditions placed upon it at the preliminary and by City Council. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion for approval was carried 6-0. ITEM 22 - #53-85P - CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, PARCEL J (LIFECARE) - MASTER PLAN Member Crews and Member Kern abstained from discussion and voting on Item 22 and Item 23. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Frank Vaught, Vaught/Frye Architects, stated that Bob Hutchinson, CSURF, and himself were available for any questions. Lucy Bourdon, 1945 Wallenberg, asked what would be the overall density of the proposed project. Mr. Vaught replied that the Master Plan had a 16 dwelling units per acre approved which would be about 500 total units within the 31 acres. Phase 1 has a 240-bed nursing home facility, Phase 2 is projected as a 149 unit retirement village, and Phase 3 is unknown as to its exact use but that would leave approximately 111 units that could be built on Phase 3. 10 Planning and Zoni Oinutes • March 28, 1988 • Ms. Bourdon stated that one of her concerns was the density of the project.'' She asked how many stories these buildings would be in Phase 2 and Phase 3. Mr. Vaught stated that they vary in height. Phase I would be a one-story, Phase 2 would be a 2-1/2 to 3 story building, which is not being considered at this meeting, and Phase 3 buildingds are anticipated to be a single story. Ms. Bourdon stated that part of their concern is the height of the build- ings shadowing the Hill Pond area. She added that another concern is lands- caping of the area. Mr. Shepard stated that the next item on the agenda will have a landscaping plan. Freeman Smith asked how many beds will be in the nursing center. Mr. Vaught replied that the first phase will be for a 120 bed facility that can be expanded to a 240 bed facility. This will be illustrated in the following item. Chairwoman O'Dell asked about the access between the nursing home and the senior service center. Mr. Shepard stated they would present this on the next item. Member Strom asked about automobile access along Parcel J and if this would present a problem with fire access. Mr. Vaught replied that the main entrance would be east of the Rolland Moore entrance and a secondary entrance off of Centre Avenue that would allow 2 points of access for fire equipment. It is more desirable to have private streets in this controlled accessway. Member Brown asked if all the buildings will be sprinkled. Mr. Vaught stated not necessarily. This is not a given from a code stand- point. He added that there is a good possibility that this will happen in Phase 2. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the road directly across from the Rolland Moore Park access will be signaled. Mr. Shepard replied that they do not anticipate a signal in the first phase but possibly within 2 years. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated the traffic signal is planned but not with the first phase, but will be installed when needed. Improve- ments to Shields are almost complete and should be complete within 6 weeks to 2 months. He added that Shields Street will be restriped from Prospect to Drake and to arterial standards. He stated the speed limit will be 35 . MPH. Planning and Zoning Mi es March 28, 1988 Member Klataske asked what provisions are being made for pedestrian traffic" across Shields Street. Mr. Ensdorff replied that the traffic signal will provide for pedestrian traffic. The speed of development will determine when the signal will be installed. Member Klataske asked if there would be enough time for pedestrians to cross the street, given the age of some of the residents. Mr. Ensdorff stated that the signal time can be decreased to allow for this. Member Strom moved to approve Centre for Advanced Technology, Parcel J, Master Plan. Member Klataske seconded. Motion for approval was carried 4-0. ITEM 23 - 153-85L - CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD, PARCEL J PHASE 1, (LIFECARE CENTER), PRELIMINARY Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project adding five condi- tions that staff placed on the project which consists of: 1) design and construction of pedestrian path between the two ditches shall be addressed at final PUD; 2) the final PUD shall include an amended traffic impact analysis which addresses the impact of Shire Court and the Shields Street intersection, in particular, to keeping that intersection open as opposed to closing it; 3) the final PUD shall address all the issues related to a private street intersection with a public arterial and the implications of maintenance and repair of the various traffic signal devices that will be on private property; 4) for reasons of site design and flexibility, traffic loads, and future maintenance, the applicant is encouraged to consider the public dedication of internal access drive; and 5) the applicant is reminded that city participation in the Senior Service Center is subject to the review of the Choices 95 committee and action by the City Council and not to be assumed at this point in time. Mr. Vaught gave a brief "tour" of the project by showing the slides. He briefly discussed the parking. He stated the parking ratio is 1 space for every 2 beds. This includes parking for employees and visitors. He added that there would be approximately 125 employees between 2 phases, of which will be in shifts. Member Brown asked how many employees will there be during shift change and will this produce a double demand, which won't last long but can be intense. Mr. Vaught replied that he will do some research and have an answer at time of final. He added that, in regard to the five conditions that have been placed on the project, he has no problem with conditions 1, 2, 3, or 4 but would object to condition 5. He found this unacceptable to have the private street go through as a public street. It would defeat the entire concept of the development. -10- Planning and Zoninoinutes • March 28, 1988 • Mr. Ensdnrff stated that the condition is there to raise the question to make sure that the applicant think through the implications of going to this type of design in which the city does not have the option of a public street. The eastern section is the only place where he has limitations. If an elderly facility is not built and if more intense, there might be some Inherent restrictions on what can be developed there at a greater density because of the limitation of access. Member Klataske asked if there would be any problem with Care -A -Van and Transfort using the private roadway. Mr. Ensdorff replied that Care -A -Van would have no problem. Transfort would not travel the whole distance of the site. They could work with the devel- oper to come up with access points on the site. Member Strom asked about the kind of use of the senior center - would it be strictly for on -site people or would it be for people from the outside. Mr. Vaught stated that it is undetermined at this point. He stated that it is a joint venture between the developer and the city and is in discussion stage at this time. It would have to go to a public vote. It would not be part of the final plan that will come before the Board in future months. It is illustrated as part of the preliminary plan and has the potential for public use. Chairwoman O'Dell asked at what time will the trail system and landscaping along the ditches be completed. Mr. Vaught replied that this has not been specifically addressed at this point. This will be finalized along with the next step of the plan. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the ditches are part of this tract or are they part of a separate piece. Mr. Vaught stated that they are part of a separate tract however, they are part of the master plan. Certain commitments have been made in the master plan with regards to the trail system. Chairwoman O'Dell asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping along the ditches. Mr. Shepard stated that this area is intended to be very natural. There will be no manicured bluegrass look but will have low maintenance to attract wildlife and maintain a natural appearance. The bike trail and the linkage across the ditch will be the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Vaught stated that they intend that trail to function for pedestrians and not for bicycles. He added that they are anticipating a six foot wide trail but could go as narrow as 5 feet. 41 Member Brown asked about the landscape plan. -11- Planning and Zoning M tes i March 28, 1988 Mr. Vaught replied that what can be expected is that all the landscaping along the private drive will be completely landscaped, entry features on both sides of the street will be landscaped, and perhaps street trees along the south side of that drive. The streetscape along Shields is already going in. He added that there will be a 90 foot setback reduction once the second phase building is complete. David Stephenson, 1907-A Waters Edge, stated that he had concerns about the height; the drainage as phases are completed; the Shields acceler- ation/deceleration lane, of which they are blocked in; signals at both exits; and if an acceleration lane will be installed after the bridges are installed. He stated that another concern was the multi -phase 3. Mr. Ensdorff stated that there would be no acceleration/deceleration lane but there would be bike lanes and two lanes each direction and a center left turn lane. He stated that Hill Pond and Shields Street would not, at this time, warrant a traffic signal. The signal will, however, be consid- ered later. Centre Street will have an access in the future. Member Klataske asked if, at the Hill Pond/Shields intersection, the light would be triggered at the Rolland Moore Park access. Mr. Ensdorff replied that no, it would not serve the purpose of both com- bining the moving traffic on Shields Street. The Hill Pond intersection will be monitored but it would create a negative impact if a signal was to be installed. Hill Pond and Shields will be a full access with no other restrictions on it. Mr. Vaught responded to Mr. Stephenson's concerns regarding the height of the buildings. He stated that a shadow analysis was done and there will be no spillover shadow onto the Sundering Townhomes to the north. Member Brown asked if the neighborhood to the north can be involved in some of the preliminary planning for Phase 2. Mr. Vaught stated they have had several neighborhood meetings and they would continue to involve the neighborhood to the north. Due to the high level of involvement, every proposal that goes into C.A.T. will have a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Vaught continued with his response in regards to multi -family in Phase 3 by stating that the master plan identifies density and land use. The preliminary plan will have to be consistent with the master plan or the master plan will have to be revised. Mr. Shepard responded to the drainage question by stating that the prelimi- nary drainage report indicates that the drainage will be going north and northeast off the property into the vacant parcel to the north. There will be a final drainage report that will tie all concerns in greater detail at the time of final. When the property to the north develops, the drainage will then be taken further east directly through the site and then north. -12- Planning and Zonioinutes • March 28, 1988 Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator for the City, stated that the drainage is being reviewed. It is complicated because there are some existing condi- tions that need to be dealt with. Essentially when it comes to the future, they do not have to detain flow normally because they are so close to Spring Creek it can outlet directly. Chairwoman O'Dell asked for more clarification on the drainage plan. Stan Myers, RBD, explained the proposed drainage of the first phase. He stated that there may be some on -site detention in the second phase area while the first phase is being completed. Because of the proximity to Spring Creek, the detention area for all of Parcel J will probably occur in - other phases of the Bay Farm area. Mr. Smith had a concern about the parking in the nursery care area and the landscaping along the ditch. Mr. Vaught replied that 120 spaces are being provided for the 240 bed facility. The developer does not wish to create a problem for himself or the surrounding neighborhood. There is additional parking which will be added as part of the second phase. He stated that the ditch is more of a functional nature and there are legal implications that are involved. Landscaping along the ditch is something they have not been able to incor- porate because they have not been able to get equipment for cleaning the ditches. The pedestrian crossing over the ditch is difficult. However, the area between the two ditches can be maintained to a higher level. • Member Brown moved to approve Centre for Advanced Technology PUD Parcel J Lifecare Center, Preliminary with the conditions recommended by staff, 1 thru 5, including No. 4, that the developer consider the ramifications of maintaining private access drive on the site. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion for approval passed 4-0. • ITEM 24 - /9-88 - RICKETTS SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY Debbie deBesche gave a description of the proposed subdivision. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, described the property. He stated that when that area was platted, there were 50 foot public streets but only 49 feet was dedicated, leaving only a one foot strip along the western boundary that the Housing Authority would still control. He has met with the Housing Authority to have them either quite claim to the city or dedi- cate this one foot strip so there would be public access into the property. It is necessary to have access into one of those streets. The conditions that have been noted are agreed upon and addressed. Chairwoman O'Dell asked for clarification on the statement made by David Herrera of the Housing Authority regarding the one point of access on the property to the west. -13- Planning and Zoning M, tes March 28, 1988 Mr. Rutherford stated that the way the street is built now, the curb and gutter goes around the corner. Mr. Herrera thought that if it continued that way and eliminated another street and have another lot, then all of the traffic out of the cul-de-sac would exit easier. Mr. Peterson stated that two of the neighbors from this area had to leave the meeting early and asked him if he would address two questions to the developer for them. These questions are: 1) what is the applicant proposing for the easternmost boundary of the property, will this be a fence, if so, what type of fence; and 2) what types of homes are proposed. Mr. Rutherford replied that the decision for fencing has not been made yet. In reference to the second question, all the homes will be single family homes comparable to the existing houses. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the owner of Lot 4 wants the drive from Thomas Court to Mulberry Street. Is this why the variance is needed? Mr. Rutherford responded that there is an existing driveway that the city provided when the Mulberry S.I.D. was placed. The owner of Lot 4 would like to have a circle drive using the existing curb cut on Mulberry. Member Brown asked what the distance is between the existing curbcut for Lot 4 and the proposed Thomas Court corner. Mr. Rutherford stated that it is approximately 165 feet. Chairwoman O'Dell asked what the Board needs to do about the 1 foot strip of land before final. Ms. deBesche stated that this is not resolved as far as staff and transpor- tation is concerned. This needs to be discussed with the Housing Author- ity. Staff would like to keep the condition on the recommendation, which allows leeway for solutions. Member Crews asked if the Housing Authority has any rights that a property owner would not have. Ms. deBesche responded that there was none that she was aware of. Ms. deBesche stated that staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) that prior to final approval, the applicant shall provide evidence of approval to use the 1 foot strip of property, which is located between this project and the property to the west; 2) that prior to final approval, the applicant shall resolve the issue of street addressing along Impala Circle; and 3) that prior to final approval, the applicant shall provide a non -vehicular access easement along the south property lines of Lots 1 and 3 to guarantee no direct access from these lots to Mulberry Street. -14- Planning and Zoninoinutes March 28, 1988 U • Member Crews moved to approve Ricketts Subdivision Preliminary with the conditions recommended by Staff and urged Mr. Rutherford to strongly con- sider, by the time of final, the fencing on the east property lines. Member Kern seconded the motion. Member Brown stated that two sets of fencing along the east property line with a 12 inch strip going in between would not be appropriate. Motion to approve with conditions was carried 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Peterson stated that there are two special worksessions scheduled for April. These dates are April 20 and April 27. He added that they should have received a memo to that affect prior to the meeting tonight. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. -15-