Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/25/1983X PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 25, 1983 Board Present: Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Ed Stoner, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson, Randy Larsen Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albert- son -Clark, Gail Ault, Linda Hopkins, Bonnie Tripoli Legal Representative: Ken Fraser Meeting called to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll was taken. Gilfillan: Explained meeting procedures and consent agenda. AGENDA REVIEW 2. #76-81C Pineview PUD, Tract A, Phase II, Final - CONTINUED to August 22, 1983 15. #22-83A South Groves PUD, Final - CONTINUED to August 22, 1983 Rupel: "Pulled" Item #166-79B, Park South PUD, Final, from Consent Agenda. Dow: "Pulled" items 5 (#44-83, Cambridge Place PUD, Prelim- inary and Final), 9 (#45-83A, Troutman PUD, Phase I, Preliminary and Final), and 11 (#47-83, Fox Center PUD, Phase II, Preliminary and Final) from the Consent Agenda. Gilfillan: Added Item 18, discussion of Project #,33-82, Asamera PUD. CONSENT AGENDA I. Approval of June 27 and 29, 1983 minutes. 3. #43-83 Beacon Hill Master Plan 4. #43-83A Beacon Hill PUD - Phase I - Preliminary 6. #110-79E South Glen PUD - Final 7. #73-82C Brittany Park PUD - Revised Preliminary 8. #45-83 Troutman - Master Plan 10. #9-82G Southridge Greens PUD - Phase 4 (Tract H), The Front Nine - Final P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1983 Page 2 C 12. #196-77C 2nd Replat Northshore PUD Georg: Moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12. Stoner: Second Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. 5. #44-83 Cambridge Place PUD - Preliminary and Final Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report recommending approval. Indicated applicant was available to answer any questions Dow: Asked about curbcut, whether increased traffic flow had been considered, and how far north of West Elizabeth the site was. He was concerned that right turn-in/out only should be used in heavy traffic areas as this. Albertson -Clark: Addressed concerns. Georg: Questioned pedestrian points of access. Albertson -Clark: Indicated circulation routes on slide. Dow: Asked developer's thought on requiring a right turn -in - /out only. Eldon Ward: Architect/ZVFK. Thought at some time a limited left (left in, no left out) might be required but not at present. Gilfillan: Wondered if site might possibly become a drive -through restaurant. Rupel: Indicated would not occur if this PUD was passed. Dow: Wanted to know when City determined if a turn -in re- quirement was necessary. Rupel: Stated traffic counts were the determining factor. A median would be needed also since it would be hard to enforce without the median. Simpson: Asked how often traffic counts were taken. Rupel: At least once a year. Georg: Moved to approve the PUD. 'P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1983 Page 3 Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. 9. #45-83A Troutman PUD - Phase I - Preliminary and Final Frank: Gave staff report recommending approval. Ric Hattman: Architect, Gefroh & Associates. Indicated he and Ted Davis were available to answer any questions. Ross: Asked if the irrigation canal ran through the middle of the project. Hattman: Stated the New Mercer Canal had been relocated to the far side of the tracks. Simpson: Asked about the architecture of the project. Hattman: Motif would be consistent throughout. Buildings would be earth -tone and masonary with accent coloring. Georg: Questioned signage. Hattman: Stated signs would be on buildings. Stoner: Asked if franchises were be considered, and what might occur with signage if so. Hattman: Indicated it was being built with local businesses in mind but if a franchise came in they would be asked to comply with signage on the building. Eventual development of site would be as an auto -related busi- ness park. Stoner: Moved to approve Troutman, Phase I. Simpson: Second. Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. 11. #47-83 Fox Center PUD - Phase II, Preliminary and Final Gilfillan: Excused Board members Larsen and Stoner for conflict of interest. Chianese: Gave staff report recommending approval. asked Board to pay particular attention to the site as it was not the total Fox Center area. P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1983 Page 4 C Ross: Chianese: Simpson: Chianese: Gilfillan: Chianese: Gilfillan: Chianese: Ross: Mel Johnson Dow: Noticed a blockage at the north end but wondered if the south also was blocked. Explained how cross easements allowed for circulation. Questioned ingress/egress further. Expounded further. Asked status of the mobile homes on the lot. Indicated they would be removed. Asked for a definition of standard parking spaces. Defined Standard, Compact, and Averaged, indicating standard was the largest and was provided where there is high turnover. Asked about facade of building, whether there would be window cutting on the back side. Developer. Indicated the property line in back was only 221 feet, not allowing for much landscaping. There would be no windows cut in. Asked if it would be retail uses. Johnson: Stated they had no specific tenants in mind. Would most likely be retail on the ground floor that was compatible with the area. Dow: Asked about ingress/egress restrictions on Prospect. Chianese: Indicated there were none. Ross: Moved to approve Fox Center PUD. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion to approve carried 6-0. 13. #166-79B Park South PUD - Final Gilfillan: Announced Larsen had a conflict of interest and would abstain on this item. Chianese Gave staff report indicating item was "pulled" because project had not yet received written approval on the ditch relocation from the ditch company. P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1 • 'Page 5 Gilfillan: Asked if item could be approved with the condition. Chianese: Felt, since this was a final, staff would rather not have a condition of this magnitude. Gilfillan: Indicated he was also uncomfortable with the increase from 72 to 170 units which would involve increased traffic, etc. Chianese: Indicated the increase came through in the preliminary and had been approved by the Board. Stoner: Asked how applicant felt about postponing the item until next month. Bob Mooney: Architect/Larsen & Associates. Stated they had been negotiating with the ditch company since before May 1 and currently have a verbal okay to religning the New Mercer Ditch. The season, with employees on vaca- tion or in the hospital, is making it difficult to get the formal agreement completed. They would prefer not to postpone any longer as it is costing time and money. Gilfillan: Asked what Phase I consisted of. Mooney: Explained Phase I Project Georg: Asked if Phase I had been reviewed with City staff. Stoner: Questioned length of time they had been negotiating with ditch company. Mooney: First formal meeting was May 5; however, informal discussion had occurred before that time. Georg: Felt it would be a poor precedent to approve a final with such an important condition to be worked out later. Also stated the develop manual indicated neces- sary lead times. Gilfillan: Wondered about the possibility of an administrative change but felt also that final proposals should be conditionless. Rupel: Stated phasing proposed was not a separate submittal. Felt apaproval would actually be for entire project and control of phasing would be difficult to obtain. P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1983 J Page 6 Georg: Moved to continue this item at the August 22, 1983, meeting. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion to continue item was passed 7-0. DISCUSSION AGENDA 14. #76-81D Pineview PUD - Tracts B, C, D, & E - Preliminary Frank: Gave staff report recommending approval. Jim Gefroh: Architect/Gefroh & Associates. Indicated he was the applicant's representative and available to answer questions. Simpson: Questioned the traffic increase on Shields. Gefroh: Could not answer as a traffic analysis had not been re- quired or done. Simpson: Asked how much improvement of Shields would be done. Rupel: Indicated it would be expanded to arterial width, including left turn lanes. Gilfillan: Asked about project timing. Gefroh: Indicated intention was to develop residential areas first in support of the intended shopping center. Simpson: Questioned building height. Gefroh: Tract B, 21 story homes with pitched rooves; Tracts D & E, 2 and 2z story mix; Commercial would be a maximum of 25 feet, 2 story office complex. Stoner: Asked about shared parking. Gefroh: Indicated there would be shared parking in the commer- cial area and felt they had allowed for adequate park- ing. Ross: Asked about surrounding neighborhoods and what would happen if some of the phases needed to be redesigned. Frank: Indicated this was the only neighborhood supermarket planned for the area. Staff felt it was appropriately located. C -P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1• • Page 7 Stoner: Moved to approve Pineview PUD. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. 16. #30-83A Helmshire House PUD - Preliminary - Revised Gilfillan: Announced Stoner would be abstaining from the vote due to conflict of interest. Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report indicating changes and recommending approval. Ross: Asked about the arrangement made for additional parking. Harry McCabe: Applicant. Indicated property had been purchased. Larsen: Questioned setbacks on the property lines. Albertson -Clark: Indicated south-25 ft, west 25-30 ft, north-10 ft, east- 5 ft. Dow: Asked about R-O-W and encroachment permit. Albertson -Clark: Indicated it was highly unlikely, but site plan would be revised if necessary. Also stated in the old part of town the streets had a 100 foot R-O-W. Simpson: Asked if there would be curbcuts on College. Albertson -Clark: Indicated curbcut was midway between College and Rem- ington, south of Edwards. McCabe: Stated he had made necessary adjustments to meet the Board's concerns at the last meeting and he felt pleased with the outcome. Gilfillan: Questioned the number of offices in the complex. McCabe: Indicated he would have an office there and possibly something compatible like a real estate office. It would be something which generated a low amount of traffic. Gilfillan: Stated he appreciated applicant's work involved in making the project meet the Board's concerns. Larsen: Agreed the improvements made helped but felt use was too "tight" or intense for the location. Being 3 P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1983 Page 8 stories high, 10 feet from the property line, blocking neighboring ground, and some landscaping being elimin- ated all concerned him. He would have to vote against the project. Ross: Moved to approve Helmshire House PUD. Georg: Second. Dow: Asked staff to respond to Larsen's concerns. Albertson -Clark: Stated building was 3 stories but was under 40 feet which meant it didn't need special review. Vote: Motion to approve was defeated 4-3 with Larsen, Simp- son, Crews, and Dow voting against. Gilfillan: Asked Board and others for ideas/suggestions for appli- cant on how to handle the item. There were no responses. 17. #33-82 Asamera PUD - discussion Frank: Explained status of project. Two administrative changes had been received, one approved and one denied. The approved change involved the appearance of the front of the building. The denied change involved removal of some landscaping as well as moving the gas pumps. On site inspection staff found discrepan- cies and a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued requiring applicant to make necessary changes, bringing the project in conformance with the approved PUD. Signage had not been specifically addressed in the approved PUD plan. Georg: Asked what City actions could be taken since the ap- proved plan was not built. Frank: Felt rectification could be made. Georg: Asked size of bond the developer had posted. Rupel: Indicate& landscape bond was 125% of the landscape costs. Georg: Felt the final product casts doubt on the Board's and staff's ability to enforce construction requirements. Frank: Indicated the operation could be closed down August 2 if developer didn't comply. Gilfillan: Felt developer should receive a letter before the August 22 Board meeting indicating the Certificate of Occupancy would not be renewed and, also, no further P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1 -Page 9 administrative changes would be accepted until they were in compliance. Frank: Asked for specific concerns of noncompliance from the Board. Gilfillan: Indicated building color, landscaping, sign, and pro- cedures for administrative changes. Dow: Wanted assurance that no permanent Certificate of Occupancy be issued. Ross: Desired further knowledge of the sign code regulations. Rupel: Stated Pete Barnes, Zoning Inspector, could come to a worksession and explain sign codes. Offered to insure a letter got sent to the developer. Frank: Asked Board to view site so all are familiar with changes in character. Georg: Asked if temporary Certificate of Occupancy would be renewed. C Frank: Stated while one administrative change had been denied staff felt with some changes it could be acceptable and with some compromise both the developer and City could be satisfied. Ross: Felt pump location had been deliberately shifted by the developer prior to proper approval. Simpson: Asked why developer hadn't brought up changes at the Board meeting when they presented their plan. Crews: Questioned our legal options. Fraser: Indicated renewal of the Certificate of Occupancy could be denied. Pete Barnes could bring the developer before the Zoning Board of Appeals to adjust signage and any violations (would be considered a misdemeanor and subject to a $300 fine). Felt City must provide proper notice to Asamera, affording them the opportun- ity to correct their inaccuracies prior to closing them down. Dow: Would like ordinances reviewed for enforcement proce- dures. C P&Z Mtg, July 25, 1983 Page 10 Georg: Moved that Board recommend to staff that no final Certificate of Occupancy be granted until project in compliance, that temporary Certificate not be extended beyond the August 22 Board meeting, that no further administrative changes be given, and send a letter to developer indicated same. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion passed 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.