Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/25/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES March 25, 1985 Board members present: Chairman Dow, Gilfillan, Brown, Ross, Simpson, Crews, and Alternate Lang. Board members absent from the March 22, 1985 worksession were Brown and Georg. Staff members present: Mutch, Chianese, Kleckner, Frank, Tripoli, and Ault. Steve Roy was the legal representative. Chairman Dow called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. He asked that roll be called. Member Georg was absent. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting and asked Mr. Mutch to review the Agenda. Mr. Mutch indicated the Board requested items #20-82B Harbor Walk Estates PUB - Final and #146-79E - RAINTREE PUD Final be taken from the Consent Agenda and discussed separately. Member Gilfillan also requested #12-85 Barnes Subdivision - Preliminary be discussed separately. Mr. Mutch indicated one additional item under Other Business needed to be discussed relating to Alta Vista Subdivision. Motion by Crews to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Second by Brown. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. #20-82B HARBOR WALK ESTATES PUB - Final Mr. Mutch described the project indicating the Lemay extension must be under construction before building permits would be issued on the four lots affect- ed. If the Lemay extension is postponed a temporary cul de sac must be in- stalled by the builder. Staff wishes to place a condition that no subdivision plat be executed until transfer of ownership from Collindale II to Osprey is accomplished. Frank Vaught, ZVFK, representing toe applicant, stated they preferred the project be approved with the condition on filing the plat removed rather than tabling the item. Member Gilfillan asked if a variance would be required and Mr. Mutch stated yes. Chairman Dow questioned the average dwelling units per acre. Gilfillan ques- tioned the five items to be changed on the site plan. Ms Tripoli explained the development of the sidewalk would occur at time of property development. Ross questioned whether item should be tabled since it was incomplete. Mr. Mutch indicated all technical aspects had been met, staff was suggesting the plat be signed at a later date in order to alleviate the requirement placed on the applicant by the seller that a vacation of right of way and easements be requested if the proposal is approved. All technical aspects had been met. Chairman Dow asked how long it would be before the plat was recorded and Mr. Mutch indicated by June 15. Member Gilfillan felt the timeframe was too long. Brown asked the implications of such a motion and Mutch stated it was satisfactory. Motion by Gilfillan, second by Ross. Motion to approve application #20-82B with the condition the plat be signed within ten days. If not signed within that period the item be tabled until the April Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1985 Page Two #12-85 BARNES SUBDIVISION - Preliminary Ms. Kleckner gave the staff report. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, representing the applicant Clarence Walters, indicated he was available for questions. Member Gilfillan stated he was concerned about the building placement and asked if buildings could be staggered to improve appearance. Mr. Rutherford indicated the drawing did not show the exact footprint of the houses. Different developers would be building each home most likely and setbacks and styles would be varied. Member Brown asked if the developer was responsible for finishing the drive, Member Ross asked about the drainage from the swail. Mr. Rutherford responded the outlet would line up with the existing subdivi- sion and the swail ran from Overland Trail to Skyline. Chairman Dow asked for staff recommendation. Ms Kleckner state staff recom- mended approval with the following conditions: 1) alternative landscaping for drainage be provided, and 2) fencing be provided along property lines. Jean Stewart, property owner to the west, felt one entrance on Orchard was not sufficient. She was worried about the underground stream, and felt the devel- opment was too dense. Chairman Dow asked for the street plan regarding West Plum which was a stub. Ms Kleckner explained West Plum would be stubbed to the north. Property to the east was unsubdivided currently and no street plans made. Drainage has been a problem in the area and the proposed detention pond will help the situation. Mr. Rutherford responded Locust Grove Drive to the north would eventually provide another entrance. Gerald Henggeler, the neighbor at 720 Kimbal Road, wondered what the approximate cost of the homes would be. Mr. Rutherford guessed they would be approximately 1200 s.f. and in the $60-75,000 range. Chairman Dow asked if they would be stick built and Mr. Henggeler mentioned at one time modular homes had been proposed in the area. Mr. Rutherford indicated they would be stick built. Linda Hoffmann, 601 Louis Lane to the north of the development, stated she supported the project. Member Crews asked about the Plum deadend. Member Ross asked Ms Steward if she had only one way in and out. He felt possibly the City should reserve future ROW for Plum. Ms Kleckner indicated Plum could be stubbed out further to provide Ms Stewart another access although this project might lose one lot. Member Ross felt if nothing happened on the street it would end up being a long cul de sac and wondered about limiting the number of building permits. Mutch responded it would be a nightmare to enforce and the fire department feels the area can be adequately served. Member Gilfillan moved to approve the project with the two conditions staff requested and an additional one stating no certificate of occupancy will be issued on lots south of the proposed West Plum. He felt the applicant should address the extension of Plum. Mutch felt there should be a time period on the CO as "until such time as West Plum is built through to the neighboring Planning and Zonin and Minutes • March 25, 1985 Page Three subdivision." Member Brown asked the motion be restated. Chairman Dow questioned if a 4th condition showing West Plum stubbed both directions should be added. Member Gilfillan felt either would be fine, Crews felt stub from both sides was necessary, Ross felt property to west might not require stub. Chairman Dow restated the conditions of the motion as 1) developer must pro- vide alternative landscaping for detention pond, 2) fence east and west property lines, and 3) no C.O.s or building permits issued for lots south of the West Plum stub prior to the completion of development of one or two parcels on the east or west. Mr. Mutch felt the third condition was unfair to both staff and the developer and Member Ross stated the staff needed to provide the recommendation. Mutch indicated one stub was sufficient, two stubs optimum. Member Brown asked Board consider Ms Stewart's property when extending Plum. Motion by Ross, second by Gilfillan. Motion to approve application #12-85. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. #146-79G RAINTREE PUD, TRACT D, PHASE I - Final Mr. Frank gave the staff report recommending approval. Changes to the plan include additional landscaping along Raintree, behind the grocery store, and along Drake and Shields. This project does not include Tracts C or A. A tree was removed at Raintree and Drake because of site distance problems. Member Simpson was concerned about the lower retail area and its alignment. Frank Vaught, ZVFK, representing the applicant felt it was consistent with the preliminary plan. One retail building had been reduced from 8,000 to 6,400 s.f. Mr. Frank stated there was a total of 16,000 s.f. of retail. Mr. Vaught reviewed Drake Crossing setbacks and stated this project was comparable. Member Brown asked the size of the grocery, and use of the backside of the grocery. Frank responded the building was 52,000 s.f. and the rear was a loading zone area. Chairman Dow asked about traffic movement and Mr. Vaught stated the medians along Drake were extended adding a left turn, and the Shields entrance would not be extended until Phase 2. Chairman Dow also questioned the phasing and Mr. Vaught responded the timeframe was to begin this summer, move in early next year, and develop a potential for future pads prior to beginning additional phases. They will finish perimeter landscaping and provide temporary landscaping if construction was not begun. Member Crews asked if Shields improvement would be done and Mr. Vaught indicated with Phase 2. Mr. Frank responded staff recommended approval with no conditions. Motion by Brown, second by Ross. Motion to approve application #146-79G. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. #69-84C C.S.U. BULL FARM - Preliminary Member Crews abstained from this item due to a conflict of interest. Cathy Chianese gave the staff report. Randall Larsen, Larsen & Associates, representing the applicant, stated the project had been redesigned to address concerns. Units in Area C had been reduced by 30 to 312. Each area had changes in landscaping. Traffic and the traffic study were discussed relating Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1985 Page Four to parking, parking lot layout, and bike trails. Ms Chianese gave staff's evalution of the resubmitted plan stating specific items will be addressed at final and staff is recommending approval. Chairman Dow wanted to know staff's position on the bikeway for Constitution and Plum and Ms Chianese felt on street parking should be restricted to prior- itize bike lane. Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, didn't see much improvement. Traffic was being diverted onto Constitution and Lynnwood but the sorority and frater- nity houses would suffer. Too many cars would be added to an already conges- ted area, schools would be affected, and F.H.A. has a law about fencing ditch- es that has not been addressed. Streets in the area need to be brought through. Constitution can't go to Mulberry, Skyline can't go to Prospect. Prospect west of Shields is a mess. Robert Osterhout, 1204 Constitution Ave, spoke regarding traffic study. No copies were furnished to interested neighbors but it did appear the study was for a very selected time. Traffic impact and housing impact were not adequately addressed. Proper ingress and egress is not provided, no signal- ization at Consitution and Elizabeth is a problem, and the bike land should go south on Constitution, then east on Springfield to the street south of the University. Steve Abreu, Phi Gamma Delta, 801 S. Shields, felt Plum parking is a great problem and needs to be considered now, not later. Chairman Dow stated at final the Board would take a comprehensive look at parking. Steve Reed, 1344 Fairview to the south of the project, noted he had taken a petition around and the majority of the people opposed the high density. A reduction of thirty units was not significant although using the ditch as a visual amenity and the parking lot redesign were great. Campus West traffic is temendous and an additional 1200 cars is outrageous. How about a 30 percent reduction in Area C. Mike Gould, McDonald's Assistant Manager, stated his support for the project. It would be good for local business and the surrounding area. Karen Bridges, 1833 Broadview Place, wondered what the house size and cost in Area A would be. Mr. Larsen projected 1000-1200 s.f. and approximately $60,000. She asked about lot depth, fences, and tandem parking. Mr. Larsen responded lot depth would be 85 feet deep, tandem parking would allow for six cars per house, and Ms Chianese responded the City had no requirements on fences. Fences would be the responsibility of the property owner since they were not specified in the PUD. Barb Allison wondered who would care for the open space and Mr. Larsen indi- cated the units most likely would be rentals and the property owner would be responsible. Member Simpson asked about berm height and safety issues to which Mr. Larsen responded they would be addressed at final. Member Brown asked for a compar- son project in the City and was given Courtney Park, Somerset, or HeatherRidge. Planning and Zonin and Minutes March 25, 1985 • Page Five Attorney Roy indicated the City Council can notify a responsible party of lack of maintenance, the City can undertake to maintain the property for up to a year and put a lien against the property for payment. Chairman Dow questioned the commercial area access and buffering. Mr. Larsen did not forsee having layout for commercial at time of final. The Master Plan shows six possible curbcuts. Dow asked staff about traffic volumes and impacts and Ms. Chianese stated the December, 1984, study indicated a signal was not necessary at this time. The City can always install a signal if they feel it is warranted. Member Ross asked about the bull farm operation and Mr. Larsen stated the Foothills Farm must first be completed. Chairman Dow asked about the phasing. Brown questioned the rationale of the bikepath south on Constitution and Ms. Chianese indicated it would be an excellent addition and would pass the information along. Member Gilfillan moved to approve the plan but wanted to see a preliminary plan of the commercial. Member Brown asked if Board could do that. Member Ross stated while it might not be necessary he felt it would be good. Mr. Larsen indicated final would not be submitted for 4-8 months. Member Brown would like to see Building 4 in Section C moved 10 feet to the east, Member Simpson was concerned about the rental units and wanted extensive buffering. Dow felt the area was appropriate for higher density. Motion by Gilfillan, second by Ross. Motion to approve application #69-84C. Upon a vote, the motion carried 6-0. #13-85 SHERWOOD STREET EFFICIENCY APARTMENTS - R-H Site Plan Randy Larsen of Larsen and Associates gave slide presentation covering site orientation, design goals and objectives, and addressed neighborhood and staff concerns. This plan shows a paved alley adjacent to the project, moves the building 10 feet back from Sherwood" Street, and increases site landscaping; all previous concerns. Ms. Kleckner gave the staff report suggesting a 55 foot setback from the curb and more foundation plantings to mitigate the mass. The City is requesting the total alley be paved. Staff recommendation is for denial because of inadequate setback, inadequate landscaping, and unresolved drainage problems. Ingrid Hamann, 124 N. Whitcomb, was concerned the project was not consistent with the neighborhood. She was at the February 27 neighborhood meeting and also surveyed the neighbors in the 100 blocks of north and south Sherwood and Whitcomb and their concerns dealt with mass and turnover in tenants. Tim Faust, 125 N. Sherwood, across from the project, indicated density was his greatest concern as well as the traffic it would generate. He would like houses renovated, not replaced in the neighborhood. Glen Konen, 121 N. Sherwood, felt approval of this project would be the first introduction of multi -family other than converted houses, and is unwanted by the neighborhood as is retail. The density is too intense for such a small area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1985 Page Six Dennis Sumner, 602 W. Mountain, felt individuals had put substantial invest- ment into remodeling and upgrading single-family residences to upgrade the neighborhood and this project was not compatible. His on -site concerns were that parking would be a problem (with garages being used for storage) and there was limited open space. He felt the motorcycle parking was in an inap- propriate location, the alley needed to be paved, and the building was too massive. Rosalyn Johnson, 118 N. Sherwood, a renter, expressed her concern with a rental unit. Her current landlord is uncooperative regarding any improvement and she wondered if it would be any different with the project. Gwen Squire, owner of 125-127 N. Meldrum, felt alley improvement was necessary. Member Ross asked if she felt some monetary responsible toward this improvement and she indicated her property had access from Meldrum. Linda Ripley, 110 N. Sherwood, felt the neighborhood's future as residential, not commercial or multi -family, was of great concern and these efficiency apartments were not compatible. Member Ross moved to deny the project based on intensity, setback from the side lots (rather than street), and felt the drainage concern needed to be addressed though not necessarily through paving the alley. Member Crews felt the development transition meant the conversion of single- family to multi -person in this instance and was not appropriate. Member Simpson stated some single-family areas need to be preserved. This is a small block being restored and a special area. Member Gilfillan suggested proposing an alternative to the applicant so he could come back with a more compatible project. Member Dow felt the item couldn't be tabled as there were too many problem areas. Motion by Ross, second by Brown. Motion to deny application #13-85. Upon a vote the motion to deny carried 7-0. #8-85 MOUNTAIN GYMNASTICS - Preliminary and Final Member Gilfillan did not be participate in this item due to a conflict of interest. Eldon Ward, Cityscape, representing the applicant, was available to answer questions. He did state there were only two gyms in town and both in an industrial area though they are not of an industrial nature. This site, in the flood plain, would work for a gym while it wouldn't work for other type development. Cathy Chianese gave the staff report noting it was reviewed as both prelimin- ary and final and was in conformance with the LDGS. She had recently heard from several neighbors who voiced concern over the project. Member Simpson asked about signage and wanted a comparison to the existing facility. Mr. Ward said a small sign was proposed and this building is very similar to the existing structure though it is half metal and half block, not - Planning and Zoninard Minutes March 25, 1985 Page Seven • all metal. Member Lang questioned the adequacy of parking and it was indicated there was a verbal mutual agreement with the neighboring church. Member Brown asked about building setback, height, play area to the south, park dedication and whether there would be a pedestian-vehicle conflict at the entrance. Mr. Ward indicated the setback was 31.5 feet, height was 28 feet, building couldn't be set back further because of sewer lines and floodway, the play area is for use with the preschool and supervised and fenced, a patterned walk could be used to emphasize the pedestrian way, and there was additional area for parking expansion. Ms. Chianese stated there was a verbal agreement regarding the park but nothing formally yet. Member Brown then questioned energy conservation and Mr. Ward indicated the building had an airlock entry, excess insulation, earth berm, and evaporative cooling system as well as no entrance on the north. Mike Dailey, architect for the Neenan Company, indicated windows on the south for energy don't work with the interior of the gym. Member Ross felt the building was not real attractive and Mr. Dailey replied it worked well with the church complex next door. Member Ross indicated he could not support the project as presented tonight. Steve Bosko, 412 E. Stuart, felt it was inappropriate to call this an educa- tional facility. It was a private business run for profit being put in a residential area. It's an ugly building and there is nothing as tall in the neighborhood. He showed the Board pictures of the existing building (21 feet), GK's Gymnasium (16 feet) and a petition he passed around yesterday with 22 signatures (out of 24 neighbors surveyed) against this project. Cheryl Matsumoto, 500 E. Stuart, stated she received no information about the project. She believes the increased traffic was a concern as well as having a commercial building in a residential-, area. Chairman Dow noted the Board was well aware of the nature of the business. Lynn Downey, 404 E. Stuart, felt this commercial structure was not compatible with the neighborhood. The hours of operation were a concern as was traffic (vehicle and pedestrian) congestion. The project was inappropriate for the area, would lower property values and increase traffic. Sara Bosko, 412 E. Stuart, indicated Stuart was a wide, straight street en- couraging speeding. The Mountain Gym entrance was at the location where a child was hit by a car last year. As a teacher she asked the Board to consider the children's safety. Sonja Nornes, 1808 Busch Court, was not better than what might be proposed. building appearance were inappropriate. opposed to the project and felt it was She felt, however, the height and Connie Backes, Mission Hills resident (2201 Hiawatha Court?), uses the park freqently, has kids enrolled in Mountain Gymnastics, and supports the location. The programs would not be during the school hours. She felt the people at Mountain Gym are willing to work with the neighborhood on concerns. The present location is certainly no safer than this one. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1985 Page Eight Pat Lewis, 1809 Busch Court, was also for the project. She looks at the field daily and is glad the park is being developed. Jean Springer, former Mountain Gym employee, noted they were good employers and concerned business people. She felt she could validate the educational aspect of the facility. Steve Vratil indicated Fort Collins needed this center and was limited by the current facility. Dennis Matsumoto, 500 E. Stuart, felt the structure should not be in a resi- dential area because of the increased traffic. Rick Steffin respected the neighborhoods concerns but thinks the building is attractive and would be an asset. Member Ross asked the status of Stuart Street and Ms. Chianese responded it was a collector street. Ross believed a person buying property across from a park entrance should expect some traffic problems but was concerned with the building's appearance. Mr. Ward indicated it was a preliminary and before final they would refine the architecture. The 32 feet is a maximum and the building would be only 28 feet high, and could be reduced possibly. The church structure is a little over 25 feet. Member Lang asked about moving the curbcut closer to building but Mr. Mutch stated the City needed that to remain as shown for turning conflicts. Chairman Dow questioned process for approving preliminary and tabling final. Mr. Ward asked Ross to address his architectural concerns and he felt the exterior finish was inappropriate including the back and sides since they would also be highly visible. Chairman Dow wondered if park dedication was a contingency of the project and Mr. Neenan stated his gift of land was con- tingent on nothing. Motion by Ross, second by Crews. Motion to approve the preliminary and table the final of application 8-85. Upon a vote the motion carried 6-0. #1-85B FOSSIL CREEK COMMERCIAL PUB - Master Plan #1-85C FOSSIL CREEK COMMERCIAL PUB - Preliminary Member Gilfillan abstained from these items due to a conflict of interest. Cathy Chianese gave staff report for both items as they would be handled together but voted on separately. Jim Gefroh, Gefroh & Associates, representing the applicant, gave a report stating two neighborhood meetings were held and four variances were a part of this project. The buildings would be of a residential character to blend with the adjacent single family. Member Brown asked the width of landscape buffer. Mr. Gefroh stated fifteen feet which would still provide residents the desired view corridor. Brown questioned distance of Buildings 3 & 4 from internal sidewalks and actual height of building. Gefroh responded Building 4 was five feet, 3 three feet, and maximum building height was 30 feet in one- and two-story configurations. Planning and Zonin and Minutes March 25, 1985 • Page Nine Ms. Chianese stated staff was recommending approval of the Master Plan and Phase 1 with approval of two variances relating to contiguity and a 200 foot curbcut spacing required by the City. Chairman Dow stated a Mr. Mokler ques- tioned the traffic at Hwy 287 and Fossil Creek Drive and whether a traffic light would be required. Ms. Chianese noted a signal was proposed at the location but this project would not generate the installation of same. Michael Clinger, 5205 Fossil Creek Road, was in favor of the project but wished to know what B-P zoning entailed. Ms. Chianese explained the PUD governed the uses and the applicant had agreed to light retail, office, per- sonal service, and membership clubs. Specific uses would not be available at time of preliminary review. Mr. Gefroh noted the conditions of business service stated on the Master Plan would be looked at with each phase. Mr. Clinger questioned timeframe for installation of the traffic light and Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer, stated a light was not warranted at this time. Development to the east along Fossil Creek would be required to trigger necessity of the light. Member Brown wondered if the business service limitation applied only to the Preliminary and wanted it on Master Plan as well. Staff stated this was unnecessary. Motion by Crews, second by Ross. Motion to approve application 1-85B. Upon a vote the motion carried 5-1 with Member Brown voting no. Motion by Lang, second by Ross. Motion to approve 1-85C with the condition it be limited to general business services. Upon a vote the motion carried 6-0. #70-82A 811 EAST ELIZABETH ---Expansion of a Non Conforming Use Chairman Dow abstained due to a conflict of interest. Cathy Chianese gave staff report for this proposal for an accessory building (24x20 foot garage) to be used for medical record storage and to store a company car. It would not expand the useable office space and will not incre- ase personnel. Charles Unfug, attorney representing Dr. Unfug, presented pictures and a survey of 66 neighbors within a 500 foot radius who did not object to the structure. They have tried to work with the neighbors and have reduced build- ing size as it was a concern, provided a berm, and did hold two neighborhood meetings. Mayo Sommermeyer, 810 E. Elizabeth, claimed this was an expansion of the use just as the earlier project the Board denied. The neighborhood feels it is a threat to residential use and is against any expansion because of concern regarding what will happen next. This project is not compatible with maintenance of quality of life of the neighborhood. Norman French, 816 Garfield, living south and adjacent to the property, stated he would look from his living room window at this garage since it was so far Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 25, 1985 Page Ten back on the property line. He also questioned the width of the drive and felt this was an expansion of a non -conforming use. Reed Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth, stated he had done the landscaping as he was a neighbor. He was against this non -conforming use moving another 182 feet further back in the neighborhood. Member Ross asked if he prefered the garage further to the front of the lot and Mr. Mitchell agreed he would prefer that. He added at a neighborhood meeting years ago 29 people showed up and 28 were against the expansion of this non -conforming use and even though staff recommended approval the Board denied the project. Mr. Mitchell also presented a letter from Sam Cala who had to leave because of the lateness of the hour, opposing the project. Sanford Kern, 804 E. Elizabeth, read portions of a letter to C. Chianese complaining the notice from the City represented this project as a 2 car garage not expansion of a non -conforming use. He also stated the neighbors signing the petition did not realize the size of the garage as 36x25. He was concerned the building had potential for other uses as it could not be monitored. Member Ross asked if the garage was a "threat" and Mr. Kern responded the use kept changing. First it was for a boat and his son's car, now it's records. The project is really an expansion of a non -conforming use and it should be denied for the same reasons as the last time. Dr. Unfug, applicant, indicated two years ago the hearing the concerns of the neighborhood in expanding the business he gave up the attempt. The garage however would house 20 four drawer files and disposable paper products used in the office. Previously opposed neighbors were no longer opposed. Since he purchased the property the value of the area has not decreased and he has tried to be a good neighbor and improved the building appearance. (: Member Ross asked where the items to be stored currently were and the square footage of the office building. Dr. Unfug responded he was currently renting a U-Stow-It and the office was just over 1000 square feet. Member Crews asked the width of the drive and Charles Unfug indicated the fire department dictated the size. Responding to Member Simpson's questions regarding the location of the garage Charles Unfug stated it was placed in the least con- spicuous spot. Member Ross indicated earlier he was an advocate of not increasing a non -conforming use but this didn't seem to be a bad plan and wouldn't open the property to other uses coming in. Member Gilfillan moved to approve the project based on no increase in personnel, no business expansion, and a single land drive no wider than 20 feet. Member Lang wondered if the Board should address moving the garage forward and Charles Unfug indicated it could be moved up another 50 feet. Member Simpson thought it more sensible to be closer and Member Brown asked staff's opinion. Ms. Chianese explained there would be no problem with moving the garage forward. Mr. Mutch added it could be adjacent to the existing parking lot. Planning and Zoninfoard Minutes March 25, 1985 • Page Eleven Mr. Mitchell indicated all adjacent neighbors objected to this expansion of a non -conforming use. Ms. Chianese explained copies of the plan had been given to a neighbor for dissemination and Dr. Unfug indicated he had personally pointed out the garage location to Mr. Mitchell. Motion by Gilfillan, second by Ross. Motion to approve application 70-82A suggesting the applicant work with the neighbors to position the garage closer to the street. Upon a vote the motion carried 6-0. #15-85 PARK OIL & GAS SPECIAL REVIEW - County Referral Elaine Kleckner gave the staff report recommending the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the County approve the project. Mr. Mutch noted the staff had reviewed the project in great length, all environmental information had been provided and all precautions that could be taken were being taken. Arthur L. Vermillion, Park Oil representative from New Orleans, stated there were six staff conditions and added that 3 and 4, referring to landscaping, would actually be controlled by the surface owner. Member Brown asked the size of tank, Simpson the color. Mr. Vermillion indi- cated maximum height was 16 feet, 12-14 feet in diameter, and it was earthtone in color. Member Brown questioned the noise mitigation measures and Mr. Vermillion indicated noise was within an acceptable range. Ms. Kleckner stated the county would have the enforcement responsibility. Chairman Dow asked how long wells would be operating and it was indicated a 20 year life per field was anticipated. Motion by Crews, second by Ross. Motion to approve application #15-85 with the following recommendations: 1. Producing well sites should also be bermed to contain potential oil spills. 2. The applicant should be required to treat the road surface to avoid adverse impacts on air quality and the adjacent residential areas. 3. Landscaping should be installed as per the revised landscape plan, received by the City on 3/8/85. 4. A solid cedar fence should be built around the injection facility due to the visual impact. Chain -link or rail fencing would be considered acceptable for the well sites without pump jacks since a solid fence would probably be more noticeable than the valves, transformers, etc., associated with the well. 5. Noise mitigation measures should be required if the drilling operation becomes a problem for the adjacent properties. 6. The City supports the applicant's commitment to clean up the site. Upon a vote, the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Boa,d Minutes March 25, 1985 Page Twelve OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Mutch explained the Alta Vista Subdivision Second, which was approved in June had some timeframe problems due to the Great Western Sugar bankruptcy. In order to obtain a title for Neighbor to Neighbor there must be a hearing before bankruptcy referee but Neighbor to Neighbor must begin building houses by June 30. Staff suggests taking a bond for $500 from Neighbor to Neighbor to be used for a quiet title against Great Western should that have to be resorted to. Chairman Dow questioned the impact on the three lot subdivision and Mr. Mutch indicated there was none. Neighbor to Neighbor would be given an additional six months to secure the deed or the City would take quiet title steps. A representative of Neighbor to Neighbor was available for questions. Motion by Ross to approve the recommendation for taking a bond for $500 from Neighbor to Neighbor to be used for a quiet title action against Great Western Sugar, if needed. Second by Crews. Upon a vote, the motion carried 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 1:52 p.m. f