HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHENANDOAH PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... FIRST P & Z BOARD HEARING (CONTINUED) - 47-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting
July 22, 1996
Page 13
ai.:-n0-C��.9Cf7;_/:�►Cli .�•y�: _ ,
f'• 1 ; 1
Chairperson Bell stated that since this item will take a couple of hours, she suggested that Item 13,
Ridgewood Hills - Amended Overall Development Plan, and Item 14, Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary, be
heard at the August 12, 1996 continued P&Z meeting. There were no objections from the Board or
citizens.
Mr. Michael Schultz, attorney representing Mr. Dwight Smith, suggested that the time frame for the
applicant's rebuttal should be deleted. He believed that 20 minutes per side to argue this with a chance to
summarize would be appropriate.
Mr. Duval stated that after the presentation of the appellant new issues are raised that would be
appropriate for the applicant to address, then a rebuttal period is appropriate. Perhaps, if new issues come
up in the rebuttal, then the opportunity should be given to the appellant to address those issues as well.
Chairperson Bell stated that the timed outline is used to help everyone with the rules of the road.
Mr. Blanchard gave the Staff Report stating that this item is an appeal to approve an administrative
change request that was approved by the Planning Department on July 1, 1996. He presented the
surrounding zoning and land uses and background.
Ms. Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, Vigor Family Partnership, stated that the applicant
believes the appeal is improper based on: 1) the appellant does not have the right to appeal a decision
approving a minor administrative change to a final PUD; 2) even if this appeal is authorized by the City
Code, it was not timely filed within the 14 day period because the administrative change was approved on
either May 23 or at the latest June 4, and; 3) an issue related to equitable stopo. She added that the owner
is not uncomfortable if there is an argument on the merits. In regards to the first issue, what right does a
person have to file an appeal of a minor amendment to a final PUD. She cited Section 29-526F6 in the
LDGS which is the specific procedure on how to make amendments to final PUDs including minor
amendments. This is the specific code section that tells one what the process is and what is involved_
This provides for no public hearing process, no notice, is a private transaction between the applicant and
the city. The only provision regarding appeals in this section states that one has the right of appeal if it is
referred to the P & Z Board instead of being decided administratively then one has the right of appeal to
City Council. It has been suggested that Section 2-353, which is a code section that deals with the powers
of the P & Z Board dictates that an appeal is appropriate for a minor administrative PUD. She believed
that this was inconsistent with the more specific ordinance dealing with minor administrative changes. In
addition, she believed that there are insufficient standards if there can be an appeal of a minor
administrative change. This is based on two things: 1) there are no Iimits in that ordinance as to who can
appeal and an appellant is not a party -in -interest as defined in Section 2-46, and; 2) there is no notice as to
when a minor amendment is approved. She stated that the administrative guideline states that the
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
July 22, 1996
Page 2
15.
#20-82C
Harbor Walk Estates PUD - Referral of an Administrative Change (To
be heard August 12, 1996)
16.
#49-95
Harmony Ridge - Overall Development Plan (Continued)
17.
449-95A
Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary (Continued)
18.
#73-82R
Provincetowne PUD - Overall Development Plan (To be heard August
12, 1996)
19.
#46-88F
Park South PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan (To be heard
August 12,1996)
20.
#46-88G
Park South PUD, Third Replat - Final (Continued)
21.
#6-96
Harmony Towne Center PUD - Preliminary (Continued)
Member Gavaldon pulled Item 3, Fairview PUD, Phase IV (C.B. Potts' Brewery) - Amended Final for
discussion.
Chairperson Bell suggested that this item be placed at the end of the agenda.
Member Gavaldon suggested that in the interest of time, this pulled item should be placed on the August
12 agenda.
Member Gavaldon moved to place Item 3 on the August 12, 1996 Discussion Agenda.
Member Davidson seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
Member Colton moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8.
Member Bridges seconded the motion with the addition that Item 2 have a variance to Criterion
81.1 of the LDGS.
Member Colton accepted the addition to the motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
�iiul ► 1 ___Coxe maKelvasi I atmeyo ou larA Imp_&W-311 Y 7I:�►g 1I�►1
Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner, introduced Ray Moe from Balloffet & Associates, the lead
consultant on this project. The project team also include Mark Engemoen and Tom Chapel from City
Engineering and people from Police Services, Neighborhood Resources, Traffic Engineering and Advance
Planning. Ms. Reavis gave a brief history of the plan.
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Chairperson Bell.
Roll Call: Gavaldon, Weikenut, Colton, Bridges, Davidson, Byrne, Bell.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Duvall, Deines, Olt, Shepard, Schlueter, Bracke, Ashbeck, Haas
and Wamhoff.
Agenda Review: Current Planning Director Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion
agendas. The consent agenda items are as follows:
1.
Minutes of the March 251996 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing. April 8, 1996 minutes will be on the August 12, 1996
Consent Agenda.
2.
#10-96A
West Plum Street PUD - Preliminary and Final
3.
#52-90A
Fairview PUD, Phase IV (C.B. Potts Brewery) -Amended Final
4.
#17-96
South Glen PUD, 5th Filing - Final
5.
Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval
6.
Resolution PZ96-9 Easement Vacation (Continued)
7.
Resolution PZ96-10 Easement Vacation
8.
#50-83D
Overlook PUD - Abandonment of PUD
9.
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Pedestrian
Plan
10.
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Parking Plan
for CSU, and the Downtown and CSU Neighborhoods
(Continued)
11.
#21-96
Recommendation to City Council Regarding Rezoning
Downtown Properties from IG, General Industrial to RC,
River Corridor
12.
Appeal of an Administrative Change for Timberline Storage
PUD
13.
#55-84E
Ridgewood Hills - Amended Overall Development Plan
14.
#47-95
Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary