Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/23/1988t PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MAY 23, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Don Crews, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Sharon Brown, Jim Klataske, and Chairperson Laurie O'Dell. Member Bernie Strom was not present. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Debbie DeBesche, Mike Herzig, Linda Ripley, Sherry Albertson - Clark, Peter Barnes, Renee Joseph, and Consultant Eldon Ward. Legal representative was Paul Eckman. Chairperson Laurie O'Dell stated that this would be Member Sharon Brown's last Planning and Zoning Board meeting after being on the Board for five years. She stated that what impressed her about Member Brown was her understanding of issues and her ability to translate this understanding into probing questions. Chairperson O'Dell presented Member Brown with a plaque and added that the Board wished her well in her new pursuits. Member Brown stated that this was unexpected and she would reserve her remarks until later. Member Edwards took a moment to remember Tom Sutherland. He stated that if Tom Sutherland is not released before the Board meeting in June, Tom will have been in captivity for three years. He stated Tom served on the Planning and Zoning Board for over six years, from April 1969 to October 1975. He added that the Tom Sutherland Fund was established by Tom's wife, Jean, to carry on his work while he was in captivity. Member Edwards brought atten- tion to the Bob Cooney poster that depicts a cedar tree in Lebanon and that the yellow ribbon around the tree signified the release of the hostages. He stated he was convinced of Tom's belief in agricultural production as a means of peace and prosperity. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1, Minutes of the April 25, 1988 meeting (continued until the June 27,1988 meeting); Item 2, #31-83B Stanton Creek PUD - Master Plan; Item 3, #31-83C Stanton Creek PUD, Phase 1 - Preliminary; Item 4, #57-86G Sunstone Village PUD, 3rd Filing - Final; Item 5, #32-84C Auto Avenue Mall PUD - Final; Item 6, #53-85Q Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, Parcel Q - Preliminary; Item 7, 024-80M Fort Collins Club Office Park PUD - Final; Item 8, #12-78F Foothills Fashion Mall PUD, Phase 2 - Amended Preliminary and Final, Foothills East PUD, Phases 1 and 2 -Preliminary, and Foothills East PUD, Phase 1 - Final; Item 9, #144-80G Quail Hollow PUD, 3rd Filing -Final; Item 10, #58-86B Richard's Lake PUD, Parcel A -Preliminary and Final; Item 11, #19-85C Cache La Poudre Industrial Park PUD -Preliminary and Final; Item 12, #3-73 Resolution PZ 88-6 Vacation of a Utility Easement in Lot 1 and the Easterly 100 Feet of Lot 2, Foothills Green 1st Filing; Item 13, #26-88,A Timan Annexation & Zoning; and, Item 14, #41-88 Kitchell Subdi- vision -Preliminary -County Referral. Page 2 Mr. Peterson noted Item 10, Richard's Lake PUD, Parcel A - Preliminary and Final, and Item 11, Cache La Poudre Industrial Park PUD - Preliminary and Final, would be continued to the June 27, 1988 meeting. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 15, 032-88 Friendship Homes, Inc. - Group Home; Item 16, #37-88 Mountain Park Homes - Change of Non Conforming Use; Item 17, #16-8813 Stitch -Tee Warehouse - Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use; Item 18, #20-87A 1990 Junior High School (continued until the June 27 meeting); Item 19, #34-88 Interstate Lands First - Annexation (continued until the June 27 meeting); Item 20, #35-88 Interstate Lands Second - Annexation (continued until the June 27 meeting); Item 21, #38-88 Interstate Lands Tract A - Zoning (continued until the June 27 meeting); Item 22, #39-88 Interstate Lands Tract B - Zoning (continued until the June 27 meeting); and, Item 23, #48-88 Conve- nience Shopping Center Policies, Design Guidelines and Code Amendments. Member Kern pulled Item 3, Stanton Creek PUD, Phase I - Preliminary, from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Member Edwards stated he had a conflict with, and abstained voting from, Item 7, Fort Collins Club Office Park PUD - Final; Item 9, Quail Hollow PUD, 3rd Filing - Final; and Item 14, Kitchell Subdivision - Preliminary - County Referral. Member Crews moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Member Kern moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 7, 9, and 14. Member Crews seconded. Motion passed 5-0. STANTON CREEK PUD, PHASE 1 - PRELIMINARY Member Kern stated there were some questions raised during the work session regarding this "cookie cutter" development. He asked about the layout of the land and plat, as well as the straightness of the streets. Ted Shepard stated that these concerns had been relayed onto the developer. Member Kern asked if staff was convinced the layout would work. Ted Shepard replied that staff was convinced. He commented that the drain- age was acceptable, and that the streets were less than 3% in grade and will allow for a positive drainage system. Member Kern moved to approve Stanton Creek PUD, Phase I - Preliminary. Chairperson O'Dell stated that LDGS Criteria #2 stated the development must be compatible and sensitive to the immediate environment, including the disposition and orientation of the buildings on the lot and the visual integrity. She asked if the project met this criteria. Ted Shepard replied that the project does meet this criteria. Member Edwards seconded. Page 3 j 0 • Member Brown indicated, for her own clarification, under the land use in staff's memo, the first phase does not contain a planned neighborhood park nor a green belt along Stanton and Fossil Creek. These areas will be included in future phases as the parcel develops from west to east. Therefore, points are not awarded for future open space amenities. She asked why 20 points had been awarded when reviewing at the point chart. Ted Shepard stated this was due to the proximity of the project to Fossil Creek Park, which City Parks and Recreation had purchased. Motion to approved passed 6-0. FRIENDSHIP HOMES, INC. - GROUP HOME Debbie deBesche gave the staff description of the project. Dorothy Stout, the applicant, stated the main purpose of the home was to serve those people who are not ready to be placed in a nursing home but require 24 hour care. She commented that she would help the residents with their meals, laundry, cleaning their rooms, and taking medication. She stated that the residents' families would be involved with the home, i.e., birthdays, special occasions, etc. She indicated the reason she chose the area was because of its closeness to the hospital and doctors. She stated that none of the residents drive cars but they need assistance provided for them. She stated that at the present time, she has three persons in the home which require this type of care. She stated that, at the neighborhood meeting, the largest opposition issue • was future hospital expansion plans. She commented that this should not be a concern because her home would not have any influence on what the hospital does. Debbie deBesche stated that staff recommended approval with the following six conditions: (1) that the home be limited to four (4) elderly individuals; (2) that a maximum of two (2) staff persons work in the home at any one time; (3) that the elderly residents would not be allowed to drive nor store automobiles on the property; (4) that the home be restricted to the site plan submitted and there will be no exterior changes, other than minor facial changes (new awning, correct a porch defect, etc.); (5) that there will be no signage for the group home; and (6) that the yard and landscaping be maintained in an orderly manner. Member Crews inquired about the second condition Dorothy Stout stated that she currently lives in the home. She added a volunteer registered nurse and a part-time paid employee also help out. Member Edwards asked Ms. deBesche to state the differences between a rezon- ing, a variance, and a special review. Ms. deBesche stated that the zoning is RL, Low Density Residential, and that this application is not requiring a change in zoning. She stated that group homes are allowed in RL zonings but they have to meet certain criteria. Page 4 Member Kern pointed out that this was not a rezoning issue but a special review. Dave Yust stated that the home began in October 1987 without a license. He commented that Ms. Stout intentionally began this home without local approval and is in violation with the neighborhood covenant. He added that he sees this as a crack in the covenant. Paul Eckman stated that protective covenants are private devices in subdivi- sions to limit land use and to provide for regulation. He commented what protective covenants provide for or do not provide for should be taken up in court if there is a dispute. He added that these are private matters. Chairperson O'Dell asked if Mr. Yost could seek other means for his concerns. Paul Eckman stated that if the neighborhood felt the covenant has been viol- ated, they might consult with a private attorney to see what remedies are available to them. Member Kern asked if any rulings at this meeting would override the cove- nants. Paul Eckman stated that the rulings are separate and would have no affect. Member Edwards stated that, for further clarification, when it comes to the enforceability of private covenants, neither the Planning and Zoning Board nor the City are in a position to hear these issues. Paul Eckman stated that this was correct Member Brown commented that any decisions made by this Board should not discourage anyone's actions toward this matter. Al Hilderman stated that he bought his land because it was low density. He stated he did not agree with the group home in this area. Member Crews asked Ms. deBesche to review the criteria for group homes so the audience would be aware of them. Ms. deBesche stated that the basic criteria for a group homes is as follows: 1. Group Homes in RL zones shall conform to a lot area and lot separation. In this case, the lot has to have a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. per each three residents. 2. Group Homes have to be 1,500 ft. from any other group home within the city. 3. Other issues reviewed include building height and setback, building coverage, external signage, traffic, parking, and compatibility of the architectural design with the existing neighborhood. Paul Eckman stated that the Code also stated that the Board can specify the type of group home, i.e., elderly, handicapped, etc. Page 5 Member Kern pointed out that this was stated mandated; that any zone is • eligible for a group home. Don Barrett stated that he supported the approval of the group home. He informed the Board that his mother-in-law and father are presently in the home. He commented that he was happy with the results, that the home was well kept, and that group homes are allowed in this zoning. He added there was no traffic problem. He stated that Ms. Stout does an excellent job taking care of the elderly. Chuck Rhodes asked, for clarification, as to how the home started without the City's permission. He stated he was against the project for the reason that it began without approval. He added he was not against the project for the use of the property. Peter Barnes stated that a lot of uses are started without the City's permission. He stated that on December 29, 1987, he received a formal complaint. A notice was then sent to the owner and occupants. This notice stated the property had to be brought into conformance with City Code. The two ways this could hap- pen are: 1) discontinue the use, or 2) get approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that if the home was denied by the Board, the owner would have to discontinue the use as a group home and evict one resident. Member Brown inquired about the requirement of state licensing. Mr. Barnes stated the licensing application can be submitted if the Board approves the group home. Member Brown inquired about the status of the occupancy. Mr. Barnes stated the City can not issue a certificate of occupancy at the present time until the home is approved. Chairperson O'Dell asked that, since the home is not in conformance with the Code, if it is not the City's position to punish at this point. Mr. Barnes stated that the Code orders removal of the violation and that the applicant has taken the appropriate steps at this point. Member Brown asked if the normal course of events were to legalize the use, then make application to the State for licensing, and then to move people into the home. Mr. Barnes replied that this was correct. Member Brown asked what would happen if the State did not approve the license immediately. Mr. Barnes replied that the City would issue a temporary license to cover the State's back log. Paul Eckman stated that if the State rejected the application, the City would • revoke the temporary certificate of occupancy. Page 6 Mr. Barnes stated that the zoning code does not deal with operational issues of the group home. Mr. Rhodes wondered if the Board was being put in an awkward position by knowing Ms. Stout has been in violation of the Code but would approve the proposal anyway. Member Kern stated the Board was not able to make legal judgments. Paul Eckman stated that he detected some resentment that this use was able to be established before going through the necessary channels. He stated that the populous was on notice by virtue of the City Code and can only become aware when a violation is reported. Mr. Rhodes commented that it was up to concerned citizens to take action when they see these things happening. Paul Eckman stated that in this case, a concerned citizen informed the City that there might be a violation. Mr. Rhodes stated that he assumed the Board was the proper authority to handle the violation. Member Brown stated that when something like this happens, the Board will try to resolve the situation out of court, rather than kick the people out of the home. Member Klataske commented that, as landowners, there is a responsibility to see that we are not in violation of City Codes. Howard Bruner stated he thought he had selected a high quality area of living when he purchased his home. He commented at the meeting a few weeks ago that it was almost unanimously decided by the residents in the area that this group home should not be permitted. He stated it was poor business manage- ment to start a business without following the proper procedures. He stated it was the Board's primary concern to consider the individuals that moved into the area years ago. He added he was concerned that a whole row of group homes could be started along Pitkin because someone could see this as a money -making business. Chairperson O'Dell stated that a whole row of group homes along Pitkin was not possible. The City will not approve another group home within 1,500 feet of this group home. Mr. Bruner stated his real concern is that the neighborhood is totally helpless in this situation where the hospital is buying homes in the area. Member Kern stated he has been in the same situation with business invading his neighborhood. But he restated this is an allowable use and there is little the Board can do about it. Page 7 l • Paul Eckman commented the State statutes do require the cities in Colorado from prohibiting group homes for elderly and the developmentally disabled in various zones. Debbie DeBesche stated the use is permitted in the RL zones. The RL zones include: single family dwellings, public and private schools for elementary and high school education, public and quasi -public non-profit and recreational use, public utility installations and facilities for the protection and welfare of the surrounding areas, churches, and group homes subject to special review. James Kasai stated he is opposed to the project. He commented Ms. Stout intentionally began and continued to operate the home without local approval or licensing. He stated she has not acted in good faith with the City, State and neighborhood. Jack Vilms stated he is also opposed to the project. He commented the prop- erty values in the area rest on the zoning and a change or impairment of the zoning will effect the value of the homes. Member Kern inquired if there is any evidence that group homes effect the value of property in neighborhoods. Tom Peterson stated no studies have been conducted as to this issue. Shirley Barrett informed her mother has been in the home for the past three • years. She said she can not see where having a group home in a neighborhood effects the property value of other homes. Member Edwards moved to approve the special application of Friendship Homes, Inc. - Group Home with the six conditions as stated by staff and reserved his comments to see if there would be a second. Member Crews seconded. Member Edwards stated a group home is an allowable use in the RL zone. The City does have the opportunity to review the application and a decision is made based on the criteria. He indicated comments were made by audience members that the applicant is in violation now, so deny the application. This is not one of the criteria the Board reviews and therefore is not a valid point. He continued, if every neighborhood said they did not want group homes the City would have to set aside an area for group homes; this is not feasible. He added all must share in accommodating for the needs of the elderly. Member Kern inquired about he suitability of this particular house for the use of a group home. Debbie DeBesche stated the State looks at the size and number of bedrooms. Member Kern commented the house does not appear to have a basement and was concerned if each person would have their own bedroom. 40 Page 8 Ms. Stout informed the house has five bedrooms, three on the main floor and two in the basement. Member Brown stated the building meets the criteria for group homes. She commented she does share the concern that the applicant did not follow the proper procedures for starting a group home. Member Kern stated as long as the home is maintained and that there is no knowledge that there is a decrease in the property value, he has to decide if this is an appropriate placement for a group home. He indicated he does feel this is an appropriate use and therefore supports the motion. Member Crews stated he agreed with the other Board members. He added the Board makes land use decisions, not legal decisions. Member O'Dell stated she also supported the motion Motion passed 6-0. MOUNTAIN PARK HOMES - CHANGE OF NON -CONFORMING USE Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff description of the project. David Herrera stated he had asked for a change of a non -conforming use. He commented presently the site is a mobile home park with one home on the land. He suggested the present use is not appropriate. He informed the proposal is to redevelop the land into high density residential housing. Sherry Albertson -Clark stated the site plan was designed with the three variances in mind. The variances are: 1. reduce the required parking lot setback along Mountain from 10 ft. to 7 ft. behind the sidewalk; 2. reduce the required number of parking spaces from 41 to 28 (based on one vehicle per unit, opposed to 1.5 per unit); and 3. reduce the amount of required interior parking lot landscaping from 436 sq. ft. to 210 sq. ft. She commented in reviewing a non -conforming use change the criteria are as follows: 1. nature of proposed expansion, 2. size of proposed expansion; 3. difference in the degree of use of the non -conforming use as a result of the proposed expansion; 4. reasons for the proposed expansion; and, 5. overall impact of the proposed expansion on the surrounding property. Member Kern asked for the definition of elderly and inquired if the housing was restricted to the elderly. Mr. Herrera stated elderly is defined as individuals 62 years or older. He informed the proposal did not provide for family housing in an elderly devel- opment. Member Kern inquired what would happen if an 80-year old were to have a 20-year old spouse. Would they be able to live in this housing. Mr. Herrera stated in this case alternative housing would be found Page 9 • • 0 Member Brown inquired if non -elderly handicapped would be allowed in the housing. Mr. Herrera stated the project is designed for independent living. Member Crews inquired if there would be income restrictions. He also was concerned about the parking. Mr. Herrera stated there would be income restrictions and a limited number of cars allowed. Chairperson O'Dell inquired who would take care of the walks and mainte- nance. Mr. Herrera stated there would be a maintenance crew with the necessary equipment to handle these things. Paul Eckman informed the Code states in considering a change to a non- conforming use the Board shall make findings as to whether or not the use is more compatible to the surrounding area than the existing non -conforming use. Member Crews moved to approve the Mountain Park Homes -Change in a Non - Conforming Use based on the findings that this change in a non -conforming use will be more compatible than the previous non -conforming use; and, based on the understanding that elderly is anyone over 62 and that children are not allowed to live in the development. Paul Eckman stated he assumed by Member Crews' motion that all residents have to be 62 years or older. Member Crews stated at least one individual has to be 62 years or older. Chairperson O'Dell inquired about handicapped non -elderly people. Member Crews stated he was restricting his motion to elderly individuals based on the parking restrictions. Member Kern seconded. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if this was acceptable to Mr. Herrera to restrict the housing to elderly. Mr. Herrera stated this is a housing policy decision for non -elderly handicapped individuals to reside in the housing. He commented he would like to keep the housing to the elderly. Member Kern inquired in what way does the site become less compatible with the use. He stated there may be a need for more flexibility. Mr. Herrera commented on the parking issue. He stated he would file cove- nants to restrict the number of vehicles a resident could park. Within the lease, restrictions would state that only one vehicle would be allowed per household. He stated this would constrain any future use of the property. Page 10 Member Edwards asked Member Crews and Member Kern to make a clarifica- tion as to the word elderly. Member Crews stated at least one resident would have to be 62 years or older, but not both. Paul Eckman restated the motion: . . .at least one person of 62 years or older, but not both, no children allowed to reside in the units, and spouses or friends can reside in unit no matter what their age. Chairperson O'Dell stated that was the intent of the motion. Paul Eckman inquired if the lease restriction of one vehicle per unit would be included in the motion. Member Crews stated this was acceptable to him as the motioner. Chairperson O'Dell stated she did not support the motion. She commented the project is a great development but did not like the motion. She indicated she would like to see the State Housing Authority decide who would reside in the units. Motion denied 4-2. Chairperson O'Dell requested that a positive motion be made. Member Edwards moved to approve the Mountain Park Homes -Change of Non - Conforming Use, based on the findings that this change in a non -conforming use will be more compatible than the previous non -conforming use, and that the age and non -elderly handicapped residents be left to the decision of the housing authority. Member Klataske seconded. Member Kern stated he does not object to the intent of the proposal but he does not like the additional factor added into the decision at this late date. Motion passed 4-2. STITCH-TEC WAREHOUSE - EXPANSION OF A NON -CONFORMING USE Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff description of the project. Dick Rutherford stated since the neighborhood meeting there had been a few minor changes made to the building. These changes included: 1. The original building was to extend straight north 60,000 sq. ft. in addition to the building. Now because of zoning lines the building has to have a setback of 30 ft., therefore changing the dimensions of the building to accommodate the setback. 2. The building will be extended 25 ft. to the north. 3. There will be an increase in the density of the landscaping along the new addition. 4. There Page 11 M will be landscaping provided around the parking lot by adding 6% of the parking lot as additional landscaping. And, 5. The storm drainage report has been completed and there is on -site storm detention provided. Member Kern inquired about the tractor parking. He wondered if the trucks will keep their motors running while parked. Greg Conger stated no trucks will be sitting idling and running. Member Kern inquired how tall the trailers are in height. Mr. Conger stated approximately 14 ft. high. Member Kern stated he was concerned about the noise and inquired if the landscaping will help buffer the noise. Mr. Rutherford informed when the landscaping matures it will hide the trail- ers. Member Brown stated she had visited the site and noted six tractors, four trailers, and four tractors with trailers attached sitting in front of the building. Member Crews inquired if there would be no loading at the rear of the build- ing; the north side of the building. Mr. Conger stated presently all traffic is handled through the south end of the building. He informed 99% of the business is bottling products and this is handled through the south door. Member Kern inquired why is this project being handled as a non -conforming use rather than a PUD. Tom Peterson stated when the City annexed the property less than one month ago, the City placed a PUD condition on the property so that any future development would be considered a non -conforming use. Member Edwards inquired about the landscaping around the building. He asked if it would meet City requirements. Mr. Conger stated there would be no landscaping within four feet from the building. Mr. Rutherford stated the landscaping would meet City requirements. Member Brown inquired if the facility operated 24 hours per day. Mr. Conger stated train traffic is not on a 24 hour basis, but truck traffic is (from the south end of the building). He informed the expansion will lesson the truck traffic because the business will be able to keep a supply on hand. Member Brown inquired about the unloading of the train cars. Page 12 Mr. Conger stated 10 cars are unloaded per day. Member Brown inquired where and how long the empty cars sit. Mr. Conger stated they back the full cars in on the center line. He commented the empty cars stay there until the local comes at 2:00 p.m. the next day. He added two shifts unload five cars, totaling the 10 cars per day. Sherry Albertson -Clark stated staff recommends approval of the project based on consistency with the following criteria: 1. Nature of the proposed expansion; 2. The size of the proposed expansion; 3. The difference in the degree of use of the non -conforming use as a result of the proposed expansion; 4. The reasons for the proposed expansion; and 5., The overall impact of the proposed expansion on the surrounding property. Leonard Ewy stated this is the first time anyone from Stitch -Tee has been present for discussion of the project. He informed when the neighborhood meeting was held Stitch-Tec and the landowners refused to come. He suggested the Board withhold approval until the neighborhood received more information concerning the proposal. Chairperson O'Dell stated when the motion was made for the annexation of the land, the motion included that a neighborhood meeting would be required. Tom Peterson stated this was correct. The motion included that a neighbor- hood meeting would be held, which was on May 5, 1988. Virgil Cline stated he had questions regarding air handling, the noise of the air conditioning, and the water run-off from the existing building. He commented he agreed the Board should deny the project until further informa- tion is given to the neighborhood. Robert Kopitgh inquired how high the berms would be, what type of trees would be used for the landscaping, and why trucks are using Timberline Road when I-25 is less than a mile away. He stated during the winter months the trucks would probably stay running. He was concerned if there would be fueling on the site, and what type of compounds would be used to clean the trucks. Member Edwards asked Mr. Cline and Mr. Kopitgh to present their additional questions at this time. Sherry Albertson -Clark stated she would answer the three questions regarding the landscaping. First, with a non -conforming use the review of the site plan is restricted as to how it relates to the proposed change. Second, the berms on the north edge and cast side of the parking area will be three feet and two feet respectively. Third, she read from a plant list which stated the proposed vegetation. Mr. Rutherford commented in regards to the storm drainage concern. He stated all the water from the existing and proposed buildings will go north to the detention pond. Page 13 Mr. Conger stated there are no plans to heat or cool the proposed facility. He indicated the building will be two feet higher to allow for bottle storage. He stated the trucks driving down Timberline Road needed a route that would alleviate unexpected traffic problems. Member Edwards inquired if the variance for the trucks to drive on Timber- line Road was to allow the trucks not to stop at the weigh station on 1-25. Chairperson O'Dell inquired how the City feels about the traffic on Timberline and Prospect. Tom Peterson stated the roads are built to handle this type of traffic. He added this was the first time he had heard that the State had granted a variance. Mr. Cline stated in regards to the trucking issue, the State Transportation Department can distribute red A's that designate trucks that are able to pull through the weigh stations and continue on. He suggested that this be done for these trucks to alleviate the traffic on Timberline Road. Mr. Conger informed trucks would be cleaned on site. He stated the process would be similar to a car wash. He doubted toxic chemicals would be used. As to fueling on site, he stated he was unable to answer this question. Member Brown inquired if the two, five car per day shift was currently being met. . Mr. Conger stated the expansion would reduce the activity around the facility. Member Brown inquired with the expansion, would more materials be delivered. Mr. Conger stated no. The same schedule would be maintained. Member Brown inquired about additional bottles. Mr. Conger stated a two week supply would be kept on hand to eliminate addi- tional truck traffic. Member Klataske inquired about the train lines. Mr. Conger stated the main line is more or less the border of the project. He informed the switch for the tracks is not on the site plan. Member Klataske stated he was concerned about the crossing signal and inquired why the rail cars are allowed to go south of the insulated joint. Mr. Conger stated the signals stay activated when the railroad has to move cars that the mule can not move. He commented Stitch-Tec does not cross the road. Occasionally, because of a backup of cars the railroad has to move box cars and this effects the crossing signals, he added. • Member Klataske inquired if the mule was used to take cars across the road. Page 14 Mr. Conger stated he does not have access to that line. Member Brown inquired if there is an activation switch on the line that Stitch-Tec uses. She asked if it has been disconnected or removed. Mr. Conger stated only the railroad can activate the switch when they use that spur. Member Edwards moved to approve the of Stitch-Tec Warehouse. He stated he Attorney as to whether this expansion expression of findings or not. Expansion of the Non -Conforming Use had not heard from the Assistant City of a non -conforming use requires the Paul Eckman stated the Code states the Board shall make findings as to whether or not the expansion of the non -conforming use adversely effects the surrounding properties. Member Edwards added to the motion: and, the Board finds the expansion would not adversely effect the surrounding properties. Member Klataske sec- onded. Member Crews stated he wished someone from the trucking company were pre- sent to answer questions regarding the washing of trucks. Tom Peterson stated the water for washing the trucks would be recycled. He added the detergents would go into the sanitary sewer system. Member Brown inquired if there would be fueling on the site how would the fuel be stored. Tom Peterson stated the project seems to be appropriate in terms of the trucking operation, especially the parking lot, washing and fueling. He suggested the Board remove these items from their review because it is an accessory use but does not effect the acceptance of the project. Paul Eckman suggested the Board should put a condition on the approval that there be no washing or fueling on the site. Member Edwards stated he would be in agreement to this amendment to the motion. Member Klataske inquired if the loading and unloading areas could be switched from the south entrance to the north. He stated this was advisable because during the winter months diesel trucks would stay running, and the switch would move the tractors further away from the residential area. Mr. Conger stated there would be no problem with switching the tractor and trailer parking. Page 15 0 0 Member Kern commented he agreed with Member Klataske. He stated he is aware during the winter months diesel trucks stay running. He asked Sherry Albertson -Clark why the original document of the proposal had a two year condition placed on the variance and this proposal does not. Sherry Albertson -Clark stated the City attorney indicated that was not the proper way to handle the situation and therefore the two year variance was deleted from the report. Member Kern stated when the land was annexed a neighborhood meeting and a PUD condition was placed on the project. Now the proposal is actually a doubling of a non -conforming use. He stated he finds this strange and this strains the approach of the project as a PUD. Tom Peterson stated when the proposal originally came in the expansion pro- posed was small and when the applicant and staff talked the land was IL limited industrial zoned without the PUD condition. Then the Board attached the PUD condition that City Council later ratified. He stated the applicant was informed that the PUD condition would apply at such a time when there is an additional building and expansion. Member Kern inquired what the difference is between an addition and an expansion. Tom Peterson stated it is a semantic difference they are dealing with at this • point. He commented Sherry Albertson -Clark will state how the Board would look at the project if it were submitted as a PUD. Sherry Albertson -Clark stated if the project were a PUD the Board would not be looking at the five criteria as discussed previously. She informed more criteria would be required for the review of the project. Member Kern inquired why the project was not looked at as a PUD when the Board had requested this. Tom Peterson stated the Board asked that any new use be handled as a PUD. Member Edwards stated he is in favor of the motion because the criteria has been met. He commented looking at the project as a PUD, this is a classic site for an industrial use. He stated this is a reasonable request since it is an outgrowth of something that already exists. He added this will be a better situation after the expansion. Member Klataske seconded. Motion passed 6-0. CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND CODE AMENDMENTS Joe Frank gave a brief background of the process involved. He stated there is a good balance of all concerns at this point. • Page 16 Harold Worth from the Shields and Prospect Association stated he has watched the development of these guidelines very closely. He commented from a neigh- borhood standpoint, the proposed document is a notable improvement. He sug- gested the proposed guidelines, policies and code amendments be carefully monitored over a one year period and that adjustments be made when needed. Member Edwards inquired if the Board makes the recommendation for adoption how can the Board assure the review and monitoring. He stated the intent should be to review even before one year. Joe Frank stated the Board could place a condition on the approval that the Board could reevaluate the effectiveness of the policies and guidelines within one year. Paul Eckman stated if the policy and guidelines are adopted, changes will only happen if the City Council approves it. He commented the Board can review this item if a condition is included in the motion. Chairperson O'Dell inquired about the reevaluation process. She asked if it would take place at a public hearing so that there would be public input. Joe Frank stated that a re-examination could take many forms, including opportunity for public input. One alternative would be to reform the advisory committee. The staff and Board might discuss how this re-examination will take place at a later date. In any case, if problems occur, the staff will bring changes to the Board as quickly as possible. Member Edwards commented if there is an obvious problem at any time and when staff becomes aware they can have the Board review the item. Member Kern moved to approve Convenience Shopping Center Policies, Design Guidelines and Code Amendments with the proposed provision for re- examination after one year. Member Edwards seconded. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Tom Peterson informed there would not be a work session in June 1988. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.