Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADRIAN ODP - 42-03B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 20 Member Schmidt thanked the neighbors for their time and effort and told them that the PDP is where the other issues will be discussed. Project: Atrium Suites, 502 West Laurel Street, Modification of Standard, #7-04B Project Description: This is a request for a modification /treet, Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Uow a reduction to 35 parking spaces fro 43. The site is located at 502 West tthe northwest corner of South Sherd West Laurel Street. Staff Recom Approval Ted Shepard, Chief Plann gave the staff presentatio , recommending approval. He stated that the standard at is%in ection 3.2.2(K)(1 a) which pertains to the minimum parking required on a per beer unit basis. a applicant is requesting that the proposed parking be 35 spaad of 43 sp es as required by the Code. The site is 19,222 square feet in size and is z ei the PDP hearing, there was a condition The PDP was conditioned that 3.2.2(K)(1 — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. At )roval that addressed the parking issue. complied with or a modification be sought. Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, 32 Kitteryourt, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that this project has a to of 20 two -be oom units and four three -bedroom units and, per the standard, wZ be required to pro 'de 43 on -site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 35te spaces. He state at the justification for the modification is that this mee the standard equally well or etter than the standard itself. The Code has bee esigned for those areas that are re outlying areas so parking is available for mmuters and others who are using the' vehicles to get to work or school withi a City core. With this project, not all of the s ndards can be equally applied be use of its unique location and proximity to altema ' e modes of tra/dsshould Brookshire showed a map of the area and noted the ximity of this protransit as well as businesses and CSU. He presented data d infating to parking standards and mass transit information from of r cities. Thesidents of this project will be students. He stated that reduced pa ing stald be applied to districts in recognition of their proximity to high fresit service and the walkable environment of mixed uses. Mr. Brookshire Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 19 Director Gloss replied that it is the burden of the applicant to determine whether the transportation level of service requirements are met. By splitting this out into two projects, if only the first phase is completed, the question is whether the LOS standards can be met. Engineering staff has determined that they can be met with a one or two phase project. Member Lingle stated that he is uncomfortable with that whole premise but does agree that it meets the criteria and therefore, unless convinced otherwise, does not see how he can vote against it. Member Schmidt stated concern about the transportation and vehicular impacts. The lots, though perhaps similar in size to those proposed, do not all "dump out" into the same area. She asked if anyone really looked at the impact of these cars on Impala Drive as well as the parking impact. Planner Olt replied that those impacts will be addressed at the PDP stage. Member Gavaldon stated that he would be supporting the project as it follows the guidelines. He thanked Planner Olt for a job well done. Member Craig stated that the research and effort put in by neighbors was commendable. She stated that Item 7 of the ODP requirements states that "any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire overall development plan." She stated that she does not believe this project really meets the density of the area and asked staff how they clarified this when making their recommendation. Planner Olt replied that this property is in the RL zoning district and noted that Mr. Maserlian was incorrect when he stated it was LMN. Relating to housing density, the only density criteria in RL zoning is lot size of no less than 6,000 square feet. This criterion is met by this application. The impacts will be determined at the PDP level. The ODP has the flexibility to meet the requirements without definitely establishing the number of dwelling units or the density that is going to occur. Parcel A will have between one and seven lots, Parcel B will have one to two lots, and the PDP has to be in conformance with the ODP. If, at the PDP stage, staff does not feel density requirements in Section 3.5.1 are being met, it will have to justify its opinion for the Administrative Hearing Officer. Vice -Chairperson Meyer noted that the PDP is where the concerned neighbors need to speak. All of the specific standards will have to be met then. The motion was approved 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 18 Mr. Averill replied that seemed a bit high to him but added that he is not a traffic engineer. Member Schmidt asked if there was anything that precludes an access on to Vine Drive rather than having the circle drive with both entrances on Impala. Planner Olt replied that the property is only 225 feet wide along Vine Drive. With Vine Drive being an arterial street, the separation requirements between streets could not likely be met. Member Schmidt asked what happens with detentions ponds in terms of land area counted toward net density. Planner Olt replied that is a platting issue which will be dealt with at PDP level. The PDP which is in for review right now shows the detention pond as an out lot, not as part of another lot. Member Schmidt asked if there would be bike lanes along the east end of Parcel B along Impala Drive. Mr. Averill replied that they typically do not do bike lanes on local roads. There are currently no bike lanes at all on Impala. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Adrian Overall Development Plan, File #42-0313 citing the fact and findings of the staff report on Page 5, Items 1-7. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Lingle stated that he recognized that most of the neighbors' concerns were with the PDP stage and encouraged the neighbors to follow the process and bring up those issues at the PDP hearing. He stated concern over the basic premise of proposing this as an ODP potentially to avoid some responsibility for some public improvements. However, a denial may not be justifiable on that kind of philosophy. He asked if staff would recommend against this because of this issue. Planner Olt replied that any development has the potential to be a phase development. The criteria in Section 2.3.2 are used to evaluate the ODP and, in this case, staff has determined that the criteria are being met and are therefore recommending approval. The Board certainly has the authority to disagree. Member Lingle asked if the level of public improvements which will be triggered by only the Parcel A development is adequate to address the concerns. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 17 Mr. Averill stated that the vehicle transportation impact study was waived for this project so vehicular level of service is not an issue. That does not prevent the pedestrian and bicycle LOS from being looked at the ODP level. The bicycle LOS will be enhanced by the bike lanes but the pedestrian LOS is probably a concern and could be explored further. Member Craig asked if they should technically have had a pedestrian and bike TIS for this ODP, despite the fact that the vehicular TIS was waived. Mr. Averill stated that the 36 foot roadway width does not contain a pedestrian facility. That should be examined, particularly with respect to the transit stops and school walking area. Member Craig asked why the TIS for bike and pedestrian were not included in the staff report. Planner Olt replied that it probably should have been included but that the plan does not preclude looking at the issues. Member Craig stated that she assumed those criteria will be met, if this ODP is approved. Member Gavaldon noted that a TIS had been waived, therefore the Board had not received one. Member Meyer asked Director Gloss to remind the Board of what an ODP is and what it does. Director Gloss noted the 7 criteria for ODP's and stated that an ODP is basically a bubble -diagrammatic plan that shows the allowable uses, density, and pattern of connections. Issues relating to neighborhood compatibility do not have a specific criterion for the ODP stage. It will be at the PDP stage that we look at more of the site and architectural design issues. Member Schmidt asked if there would be an administrative public hearing for the PDP. Director Gloss replied that is correct, the hearing has not yet been scheduled. There are both letters sent out to Affected Property Owners and notice posted in the Coloradoan for the administrative public hearing. Member Schmidt asked if, on average, a home generates 10 trips per day, or if that was the figure used by the Traffic Department. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 16 Planner Olt noted that, with the Adrian Annexation, the full width of Impala Drive was annexed along the west boundary line of the property, to the south boundary of the property. Member Craig asked if the City was now maintaining the road. Ms. Joy replied that the City does not take over maintenance until the street is brought up to City standards so the homeowners would need to form a Special Improvement District to rebuild the streets in order for the City to take over maintenance. Director Gloss clarified that the City does do enough maintenance to maintain the street at the same level the County does, with the exception of chipsealing and re- construction. Unless the street is brought up completely to our standards in terms of engineering and roadway design, we will not re -construct the road. Member Craig asked if Vine Drive also falls under those criteria. Ms. Joy replied that the maintenance of Vine will also not be taken over until it is brought up to standard, which will include widening the entire street, as well as meeting the other standards. Member Craig noted that Ms. Joy had earlier stated that because they are just coming in with Parcel A, this project would not have to improve Vine Drive until they brought in Parcel B. Ms. Joy replied that they would not have to make the ultimate improvements along Parcel B at this time. They would still have to widen Vine Drive to 36 feet along Parcel B out to Taft Hill. That would not include sidewalks or curb and gutter. Member Craig stated that it was brought up by the property owner that this property is very close to a youth center and Lincoln Junior High. She asked why pedestrian connections were not required to those facilities. David Averill, Transportation Planning, replied that, as far as the ODP is concerned, they are not doing anything that precludes that level of analysis at the PDP level. The ODP, as shown, is not preventing meeting the pedestrian level of service to the transit stop and school district and so forth. The pedestrian level of service is examined at the PDP level. Member Craig stated that offsite connections should be part of the ODP because it is part of Article III in terms of connectivity. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 15 Mr. LaMarque replied that the PDP will have to show that Impala Drive does meet the criteria as far as a conveyance element (right-of-way, curb and gutter, swale, or storm sewer). It would have to meet a natural drainage way, which would be Cherry Street in this case. It would have to carry the flow without impacting any of the houses to the east and the flow will have to stay within the right-of-way. Member Craig asked if the curb and gutter would only be along Parcel A. Mr. LaMarque replied that, at the PDP level, they will have to provide a conveyance down to a drainageway. They will have to put the improvements in off -site down to Cherry Street. Ms. Joy stated that they are going to be required to put curb and gutter along the west side of the street as well. When Parcel B goes in, they will put in that stretch, when Parcel A goes in, there is a portion of the curb and gutter that is not in on the west side and they will have to go far enough to tie in to the existing. Mr. LaMarque stated that is an engineering requirement. As far as storm drainage goes, it will all have to stay on the east side of the street. Member Craig asked, if they just develop Parcel A, if they would have to put in any curb and gutter along Parcel B and if that is an issue, does any runoff come from Vine? Ms. Joy replied that she had misspoken. By doing the project in two phases, they would be required to improve Impala from the southern property boundary to Vine Drive. That would include curb and gutter on both side of the street, and installation of a sidewalk on the east side out to Vine Drive. A sidewalk on the west side would be done by a neighborhood Special Improvement District. They would need to do that (bring the streets up to standards) before the City would take over maintenance. The curb and gutter would go in along Impala from Vine to their southern boundary and on the east side, as far south as necessary to accommodate the flows. Member Craig asked if Impala Drive itself was still under County jurisdiction. Ms. Joy replied that it is a County Road but the County does not maintain it; it is maintained by the homeowners in that area. This development will be improving the street. It will be brought up to full street standards along Parcel A and B so the City will actually be taking over the maintenance of that stretch of the road. The homeowners would then not need to maintain that portion of the road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 14 Director Gloss replied that it does make a difference. They would need to improve Vine Drive if they were going to do this in one phase. Susan Joy, Development Review Engineer, stated that if this project were to develop in one phase, they would have to improve Impala and Vine to the ultimate condition. That means they would have to widen Vine and put in a parkway and sidewalk along their frontage. By phasing this project, they are not escaping all improvements to Vine Drive. They still have to improve Impala to full City standards along Parcel A and B and they have to widen Vine Drive out to 36 feet out to Taft Hill which is the closest improved arterial street. That 36 feet includes two 12-foot travel lanes and two 6-foot bike lanes on both sides. The ultimate improvements along Vine would then wait until that particular parcel developed in the future. The ultimate condition would require widening of the street to include curb and gutter on both sides of the street. On the south side, they would have the parkway and 6-foot sidewalk. Member Lingle asked, if it went through in two phases, and there are only two lots proposed for Parcel B, if those improvements would be triggered by two lots. Ms. Joy replied that they would have to improve Vine Drive when Parcel B develops. Member Craig asked about the lack of storm drainage infrastructure and how it was being addressed in this plan. Wes LaMarque, Stormwater Utility, replied that this project does meet the requirements for an ODP level. Those requirements are: an area shown for detention for the 100 year storm and releasing at the 2 year historic release rate, and a definition of a potential outfall. There are issues basin -wide with the Vine basin but this project would not have any negative bearing on that. At the PDP level, they will be required to show that all of the new drainage from Parcel A would drain to the detention pond, and that would release at a smaller rate than existing conditions, so it would actually improve the drainage condition on Impala Drive. Member Craig asked about the fact that one of the letters from a neighbor noted that the Parcel A piece sometimes floods during heavy rains. She asked about the logistics of holding that water and seeping it out slowly so as not to make any negative impact. Mr. LaMarque replied that is exactly what would be shown on the PDP. Member Craig asked if we had adequate public facilities in that area as far as stormwater goes. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 13 Carol Yeates, 717 N. Hillcrest Drive, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she lives adjacent to this area and stated concern for the overall quality of life as well as the potential domino effect for the surrounding areas. She presented the Board with a written letter. Brooke Pilkington, 636 North Briarwood Road, gave her testimony to the Board. She asked the people in disagreement with the project to stand up in the audience. Public Input Closed Member Schmidt asked Mr. Maserlian who maintains Briarwood right now. Mr. Maserlian replied that it is a public street in the City and is maintained by the City Member Lingle asked about the private drive being platted as an easement across the adjacent lots and if it was taken out of the lot size calculation, like right-of-way is. Planner Olt replied that Section 3.6 deals with a private drive being an access easement, just like a utility easement would be. He noted that this would be a PDP issue and that the ODP would not address that. Vice -Chairperson Meyer asked Director Gloss to make it very clear what the Board was to be deliberating. Director Gloss replied that the comment probably was relevant because one of the main parameters of the ODP is density and the net density calculations are very clearly described within Article III. It specifically cites areas where we would not be applying a specific portion of the site for purposes of calculating density. One, for example, would be land that is dedicated for an arterial street. There is nothing specifically noted in the Code where we are dedicating a public access easement, that that would limit the net density on the site. By virtue of dedicating that easement, the allowable density on the site does not change. Member Lingle asked about the comments regarding affordable housing and if that was a PDP or ODP issue. Director Gloss replied that it has no bearing on the ODP. Member Lingle asked about the two-phase development and whether or not there would be street improvements on West Vine that would be triggered by a single-phase PDP. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 12 aspect, that "we taxpayers object to the use of tax monies for private gain and advantage for a project in our neighborhood that 166 petitioners don't want." Mr. Schaffer stated that the neighbors are not against development of this property but that they are against this "profound, obtrusive, and incompatible development proposal." He asked the Board to deny the project to allow for a more compatible design. Sandy Knox, 2309 West Vine Drive, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that her property is adjacent to the Adrian property and that she is strongly opposed to the ODP because it is not compatible nor in character with the surrounding areas. She stated that the immediate area is all single -story, ranch style homes on lots of 7,500 to 15,000 square feet and are on full-size streets. She stated that the proposed project is neither compatible nor complimentary with the surrounding areas. Ms. Knox stated that there are no developments within 1h mile of the proposal that have private drives. When private drives are used, the lot lines start in the middle of the private drives which make the actual, buildable land square footage reduced by as much as 37%. Ms. Knox stated that it is unethical to approve this project for development in two parcels because it permits the developer to cut the public improvement costs in half because they have no intention to ever develop Parcel B. That means that the remaining improvement costs will fall back on the taxpayers. Ms. Knox also stated that there are remaining stormwater issues on Impala which have not been resolved and that the surrounding area is peaceful and country -like. This proposal with such a high density in such a small area would dramatically alter the quality of life and property values. She asked the Board to allow only a single -parcel development with a density of three or four lots. She also stated that not a single neighbor refused to sign the petition. Shelly Neth, 529 North Impala Drive, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that surrounding homes are ranch -style with large yards and that these homes do not have any yards to speak of. She stated that Mr. Torgerson came in and passed a note to the Adrians which looks terrible to her, despite the fact that he refused himself from the item. She wonders if this is even ethical. Ms. Neth stated that it may be true that, because the area has a bilingual school, it meets the needs of a lot of low-income people. She added that that does not mean they want their neighborhood turned in to a "project neighborhood." She stated that affordable housing is fine but not on this lot. Charlie Maserlian, 2324 Plains Court, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he developed the Poudre Plains subdivision and feels that the LMN zoning probably wan not thought through on the area north of LaPorte Avenue. It leads to projects that are incompatible to what already exists, including this project. Fred Winkler, 624 Irish Drive, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he wanted to support his neighbors' opposition to this development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 11 not included in the definition. Mr. Jones noted that the proposal is not the same as what is there but is similar. He noted that the issue of architectural character might come up during Public Input and stated that it would be addressed at the PDP submittal. John Adrian, 2333 West Vine Drive and the owner of the property, gave a brief presentation to the Board. He stated that they had asked for LMN zoning when they submitted for annexation of the property and that LMN met the criteria and published goals for the City of Fort Collins regarding infill projects. He stated that they had asked for 9 duplex lots which would better facilitate an affordable housing project. He stated that neighbors objected to duplexes and added that there are 15 duplexes within a 2- block radius of their home. He also stated that other neighbors objected to two-story homes although they are allowed in the subdivision to the east. Mr. Adrian stated that there is no way to please everyone and that no two projects are going to be carbon copies of one another. The property ended up being zoned RL with the opinion that the neighbors would be satisfied with the density that RL allows, thereby cutting the project in half. Mr. Adrian noted that this is the first time in Fort Collins history to zone an undeveloped property RL. The schools in the neighborhood, Irish Elementary and Lincoln Junior High, educate students with the lowest per capita income in the City. The average home lining Impala appraises at $165,000. Based on affordable housing requirements, homes in this proposal could sell for up to $200,000 which would mean that they would not bring down the value of the surrounding homes. Mr. Adrian noted that, even with the CDP approval, they will be required to put in bike lanes along West Vine, repave part of Impala and build curb and gutters to mitigate waterflow issues. Public Input Doc Schaffer, 601 N. Impala Drive and representative of the Green Acres Subdivision, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he was asking the Board to reject the ODP and presented the Board with 16 letters from neighbors also against the project. He cited Land Use Code Section 3.6.2(L) which states that "private drives shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provision of the Land Use Code." He also cited Section 3.5.1 which states that "new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible. That compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building and mass, and similar relationships to the street." Mr. Schaffer argued that the practice of drawing property boundaries at the middle of a U-shaped private drive is unprecedented in the neighborhood. He also stated that the driveways are 12 feet by 30 feet, far below the square footage of concrete addressed by Mr. Jones. Mr. Schaffer presented the Board with a petition signed by 166 neighbors and 30 letters against the project. He stated that, by dividing the project into two phases, street improvements along West Vine Drive will most likely be pushed off in the future on to the backs of the taxpayers. He also stated, in reference to the affordable housing Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 10 Planner Olt noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on August 12, 2004 and that the Board had received copies of the notes from that meeting. He added that the Board also had copies of numerous communications he had received from neighbors. He made the Board aware of one phone call that was received from Carol Ostrem (sp?) on Irish Drive. She wanted to make it known that she would like to see larger lots so the density is not so high. Her feeling is that the developer wants to "get the biggest bang for the buck." Planner Olt noted that the ODP is all that is under consideration tonight. Section 2.3.1(B) of the Land Use Code dealing with Overall Development Plans Purpose and Effect, states that "The purpose of the Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals." Approval of an Overall Development Plan does not establish any vested right to develop the property, it is just establishing a direction that this property wants to go and the type of land uses that can occur, in compliance with the zoning district. "Applicability and Overall Development Plan shall be required for any property which is intended to be developed over time in two or more separate Project Development Plan submittals." That is what the applicant is intending in this case. There is a Filing One PDP currently under development review for Parcel A on the ODP. It will ultimately go to an Administrative Public Hearing which has not yet been scheduled. Troy Jones, M. Torgerson Architects, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the level of detail required for the Overall Development Plan is not as high as that for the Project Development Plan and added that some of the neighbors' concerns may be related more toward the PDP. He addressed the issue of density stating that, in the RL zone district, density is restricted by a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. He showed an illustration of the properties in the area noting that some of the properties are quite large and rural but there are some lots that are 6-8,000 square feet. The Adrian proposal is for 6-7,000 square foot lots. Mr. Jones showed an illustration of the proposed private drive and noted that the driveways would all come off the private drive. Each lot has 175 square feet on average of paved area for the driveway, not including the private drive. The private drive is 5,422 square feet of paved area which means that there are 950 square feet of paved area, on average, per lot, counting the private drive and the driveway. Given the assumption that the average driveway on Impala Drive and Irish Drive is approximately 20x40 feet, there would be approximately an 800 square foot paved area. Mr. Jones stated that Article 5 of the Land Use Code states that compatibility is not the "same as." It is defined by other elements: height, scale, mass and bulk of structures, pedestrian or vehicle traffic, circulation, access, and parking impacts, landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, and architecture. These are primarily PDP issues and density is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 9 Project: Adrian Overall Development Plan, #42-03B Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for as many as nine single-family detached dwelling units on two parcels totaling 1.84 acres. Parcel "A" is proposed to have no more than seven residential lots and Parcel "B" is proposed to have no more than two residential lots, including the existing house. The site is located at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: NOTE: Chairperson Torgerson declared a conflict on this item and noted that he has not discussed this, or any other pending application with which he is involved, with fellow Board members. Vice -Chairperson Meyer asked City Planner Steve Olt to give a full-blown presentation specifically focusing on the proposed density and why it is allowed under the Code as well as the neighborhood compatibility issue, private drive, detention pond, and Vine Drive improvements. Planner Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that this is a request for a two-phase Overall Development Plan consisting of single-family detached residential uses in the RL zoning district. The property is at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive. The property was annexed into the City in April 2004 and is approximately 2 acres in size. Section 2.1.3(B)(2) of the Land Use Code states that an ODP shall be required for any property which is intended to be developed over time in two or more separate Project Development Plan submittals. Parcel A is approximately 1.2 acres with a proposal for no more than 7 single family residential dwelling lots, no less than 6,000 square feet each. Parcel B reflects no more than two single family residential lots on about 0.5 acre. The plan meets the RL standards for a minimum 6,000 square foot lot. The applicant is meeting Section 2.3.2 which involves 7 criteria for Overall Development Plans. This ODP is not required to meet the criteria in Section 2.3.2(H)(2) as the RL zone district is not mentioned in this criteria. The intent in the PDP is to have a private drive to access the lots. The submittal requirement for a traffic impact study was waived by City traffic engineers. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 16, 2004 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approved of Consent Items 1-9, with the correction to the minutes as noted by Member Lingle. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: 221 West Prospect Road Rezoning, #25-04 Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 0.62 acres from E Employment District to CC — Community ComFd,east ial District. The site is located at 221 West Prosp Road, on the south side of West Prospect Ro of Tamasag Drive. Staff Approval Bob Barkeen, City Pla er gave the staff presentation, reco ending approval. He noted that the property is djacent to the BNSF Railroad t cks and that the properties to the north of this are zone Community Commercial. a requested zoning for this site is Community Commercia . The parcel is locate within the Campus District as shown on the Structure Plan an within the M on Street Corridor Plan area. The Plan shows retail and residential uXenc office uses throughout the area, showing retail and residential usesear the transit stops, one of which is just diagonal from this property. Oallowed within either the Employment or Community Commercial zones; retail'ged within the Mason Corridor Plan as well as within the Campus Districtd in Community Commercial. Retail is only allowed in the Employment z6ne as part of a ommunity Shopping Center secon/thePDP. s which would able to occupy only 5% of the land area of a PDP. The deof a Commu ' y Shopping Center require four separate users. Therefsers woul a able to occupy no more than 5% of the land area of the PDP. tial us are permitted with the Community Cc mercial zone as multi- family,larl ithin mixed -use buildings. Residential uses ithin the Employment zone abut considered a secondary use and could ther re only be 25% of the lanof the PDP. Restaurants and entertainment uses are a o considered secones within the Employment zone. Staff decided that the Co munity Commoning did implement the strategies of both the Campus Dist ' t and Mason Str of Transportation Corridor much more effectively than the Employment district does. ,PKnner Barkeen indicated that there are currently no definitive development pllansfor the site. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Schmidt, Craig, Lingle, Meyer, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Wamhoff, Joy, Reavis, Averill, LaMarque and Leman. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. - Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the August 19 and 26, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ04-21, Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ04-22, Easement Vacation. 4. Resolution PZ04-23, Easement Vacation. 5. Resolution PZ04-24, Easement Dedication. 6. Resolution PZ04-25, Easement Dedication. 7. Resolution PZ04-26, Easement Dedication. 8. Resolution PZ04-27, Easement Dedication. 9. #32-04 College and Trilby, Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 10. LaPorte Utility Service Policy Recommendation (CONTINUED). 11.#25-04 221 West Prospect Road, Rezoning. 12.#42-03B Adrian, Overall Development Plan. 13.#7-04B Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel Street, Modification of Standard. Director Gloss noted that Item #10, LaPorte Utility Service Policy Recommendation was continued by staff to the October 21, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Lingle made a correction to the August 19, 2004 minutes noting that the vote on Goodwill Industries at Harmony Centre, Project Development Plan, File #6-96N, should have been 4-1 rather than 5-1.