Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMILAN P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY / FINAL ..... 5/8/95 P & Z BOARD HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 4/24/95) - 11-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 18 property to the south. If that turns out not to be possible, he would like to make a condition that this owner, the applicant, will not block the access to the south physically. Member Walker agreed to the amendment. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Cottier moved for approval of the Milan PUD, Preliminary and Final with the following conditions. The standard condition relating to the development agreement; that a third street tree be added to the frontage on College Avenue; that if a dumpster should be on the property, it shall be in an enclosure; and, that a note be added to the plan that car hoods will not be left open as a method of advertising. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 17 Member Carnes, for the record, wanted confirmation that this applicant would grant an easement to the property owner to the south and would be placed on the plat. Mr. Milan stated he did not think -that could be done due to the access already being granted to someone else. Mr. Eckman asked if the property owner to the east already had an easement on that drive -way? Mr. Milan replied yes. Mr. Eckman asked if Mr. Milan was concerned with, as the surface owner, in granting an additional easement to the property owner to the south, the property owner to the east may claim that would unreasonably burdens his presently existing easement right- of-way such that he would have no power to grant it. Mr. Milan replied that was correct. Mr. Eckman replied he agreed and Mr. Milan would need the consent of the property owner to the east and suggested a conditional motion. Discussion ensued by all parties on the easement and access to the property. Member Cottier suggested that the joint parking points be deleted and the variance be granted for 46 out of 48% for the project. Member Strom was concerned that if Gabby's were to redevelop then this access would have the opportunity to close the other access. Mike Herzig commented that the State is also another entity that will review the access and they will have to apply for an access permit. If Gabby's were to redevelop, it is likely that the State will want to close one of the accesses, and the access on the south side of Gabby's would most likely be closed. Mr. Rutherford stated that he could not say whether it was an exclusive easement, it is in the applicant's deed for an access to College Avenue for the people to the east. Member Strom suggested an amendment to the motion with a condition to the effect that if it is possible, if there are not legal limitations on doing so, that it be a condition of this approval that the access easement also be granted to the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 16 Mr. Rutherford replied that was already deeded in the property. Also on the subdivision plat, an access easement has been dedicated to that property. Member Cottier commended the applicant on the improvements he is making to the property. She stated that she is holding out for the minimum standards and would still like to see another street tree. She also saw it appropriate to landscape the two corners in lieu of the 60/6 interior landscaping. Mr. Milan commented on the landscaping on the east side of the property stating it would have landscaping, gravel, bushes, and a curb around it. Member Cottier stated that the plans do not show any landscaping on the east. Mr. Ludwig stated that it shows gravel under the split -rail fence on the east. Mr. Milan stated that he would be willing to landscape the east boundary with gravel and bushes in lieu of the 6% interior landscaping. Member Cottier stated she was suggesting the two corners and leaving the east gravel. Mr. Milan stated that the North College Corridor Plan would be implemented soon and he would not have dead corner requirements with that plan. Member Cottier stated that the design standards for the North College Plan would be at least minimum requirements, which are the parking lot requirements. A use -by -right in the North College Plan would have to comply with the design standards when adopted. Member Walker stated that this was not really a parking lot in some respects and it seemed reasonable to him. He did not think he would go along with that requirement. Member Cottier stated that in her conversation with Zoning, the car dealers are held to the parking lot standards. Chairman Clements commented that she thought they would be going too far to make requirements that would keep Mr. Milan from parking his cars .in the corners. She felt that Mr. Milan had made more improvements than required at this point. She was happy with the plan before them. Member Strom concurred with Chairman Clements. Member Walker moved for approval of the variance from the point chart. Member Strom seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 15 Mr. Ludwig replied not there was not. Essentially, the maximum amount of points they can be awarded for joint parking, is 6 points; and, by providing and maintaining the joint access that already exists to Gabby's, staff felt 3 points was appropriate to be awarded for this project. Member Carnes would like that added to the site plan. Mr. Blanchard stated that could be added as a condition of approval. Member Strom commented that if they change the access that is recorded on a PUD plan, they would have to come back to the City to modify it. In addition, the subdivision plat shows an easement and he assumed that the easement had to be granted to someone, either to public use or a neighboring property. Mr. Eckman replied that it would not be dedicated to the public, but a jointly granted easement reciprocally back and forth between the two property owners. His concern is that if the owner of the Gabby's site is not a signatory to the subdivision plat, they would not be bound by any language on the subdivision plat. His concern was that we have a permanent recipricle easement between the two properties, that runs with the land and as a condition of this development, so it cannot be revoked by either party later. Mr. Rutherford responded that he believed that to be true for the Milan property, and the land east of the Milan property. He was willing to put a note on the site plan that this PUD would not bar access from the parking lot on the west side of the Gabby's building. Mr. Eckman replied that would be helpful in binding this property, but was there a need to obtain an easement from the Gabby's property. Mr. Rutherford stated that Mr. Milan feels that the amount of parking that is needed for his business is provided by the spots in front of the sales office. He is granting it to the neighbors and does not need it from the neighbors. Member Cottier commented that joint access is relevant, but we would like to consolidate access where ever possible. If we are providing access to Gabbys, fine, but Gabby's does have another access to the south of their property by which they can get to their parking lot. Member Cottier felt that having joint parking was of no concern, and she did not see it as a concern for this project because we are varying the points anyway. Member Cottier did feel it relevant to say that access be maintained to the property to the east. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 14_ also referenced Auto Zone as a new constructed building and that the City did require dedication. Those are the types of projects that we can get that for the future widening. Mr. Herzig added that the future widening would be done as volumes increase, a possible capital project, or as redevelopment takes place. Mr. Herzig went over some problems in widening North College, curbs trapping water because of the road being too flat, and drainage. Member Cottier commented that if an applicant is willing to dedicate right-of-way, she did not understand why we did not take it. Mr. Milan responded that he was not willing to dedicate it, he thought that it was a requirement that the PUD would not be granted if he did not do the dedication. Member Cottier asked if the landscaping would be put on top of the existing asphalt as we have seen done in some cases on North College, or will it all be taken up. Mr. Rutherford replied the asphalt would all be taken up to make sure the site drains properly. Member Carnes questioned whether the right-of-way was a public right-of-way on the Milan property, or was it a right-of-way that was being granted to a particular property. owner. If we are to give points; we need to have some reassurance that this will remain a public access. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied it would not be a public way. It would be a recipricle easement agreement between the two parties that share the access. He has not seen the agreement. He did see the attempted parking agreement and did not feel that was legally enforceable and suggested that if they were to utilize that method of gaining points, that they draft a different agreement that could be legally enforced. Mr. Milan stated it was a dedicated access to a land owner behind the property they own. Mr. Milan stated the accesses they were giving was the use for Gabby's parking lot. They would be entitled to put a curb all the way from the fire hydrants to the end of Gabby's building and they would not be able to use it as an access. They were not receiving any points for the rear access. Mr. Milan added that Gabby's does have access from their entryway to their parking lot. Member Carnes asked if it was specifically stated what the access is to, the property to the south, or the parking to the property to the south. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Ludwig replied that was what was requested by the City Forester and the staff person assigned to the North College Corridor Plan felt the landscaping was adequate for North College. Mr. Ludwig added that it does meet the street tree standards. Member Cottier thought that by standard parking lot regulations, if this project was not a PUD, would have to comply with three street trees and 6% interior landscaping. She felt that a PUD should get more than just the minimum requirement. Member Cottier asked that another street tree be placed on College Avenue. She also felt that the two dead corners should be landscaped in lieu of the 6% interior landscaping. Member Cottier asked if the southern side of the access to the site (Gabby's corner) would be improved with this project with curb. Mr. Rutherford replied that the area that creates the drive -way into the Gabby's property, which is on the south side of the Milan property, and that is the way it will be developed. Member Cottier appreciated the notes on the plan that no vehicles would be placed on the grass, displayed outside the parking lot, and no vehicles on raised racks. She would also like added as a note that the hoods would not remain open. Member Cottier asked about the right-of-way, and it was her understanding that the full 20 feet could not be demanded because of the impacts and because of the parking of the vehicles overhanging the right-of-way. She thought there would be some merit to getting what ever right-of-way was possible there because that was better than nothing. It was her understanding that the applicant was willing to give the right-of-way. Mr. Herzig of the Engineering Department stated that staff did not see this as an ultimate improvement where there has been a tear down of the building, assemblage of properties and some major impact created. We have not been requiring right-of-way dedication to the ultimate arterial standards along these locations along North College or any place else in town over the past few years. Therefore, in this situation, staff does not see an impact created by this use to justify the City's requiring dedication. Voluntary dedication would be accepted. He did not think in any way the City could ask them to dedicate because it could be construed as a requirement. Member Cottier asked what Mr. Herzig saw as a regular standard improvement of North College and how do we get right-of-way. Mr. Herzig replied if there was a major development such as Country Club Corners, that is a major assemblage of land and is creating a major impact in the area and that is where we can require the dedication. We are doing that when there is a tear down of the building or two or three buildings being put together as a development. Mr. Herzig Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 12 Member Walker asked why they received the maximum score for energy conservation. Mr. Ludwig replied that they had chose method 2 for obtaining energy conservation points. Member Walker asked how they achieved the points. Mr. Ludwig replied that it was noted on the site plan how they claimed the points and that the existing building there would be remodeled. Mr. Ludwig also noted that the energy conservation measures listed in the LDGS is where the applicant commits to those; and, the reason they are listed on the site plan is that they are incorporated when building inspection issues the building permit. Member Walker asked about the signage on the project. Mr. Ludwig replied that the signage would be regulated by the City Sign Code. Member Carnes asked about the points claimed for joint parking. Mr. Ludwig replied that staffs interpretation of the joint parking requirement was that it was providing joint access that it shares with the former Gabby's restaurant to the south. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, representing the Milan's, gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Rutherford explained the joint access and parking on the site and surrounding area. CITIZEN INPUT None. Member Cottier asked about the dumpster on the site and asked about a trash enclosure. Mr. Rutherford replied that there would not be any repair on the site and is just strictly auto sales. He assumed there would be a small amount of trash. Member Cottier stated that if the dumpster is to remain, it should have a trash enclosure. Mr. Milan stated that he did not have a problem with making a trash enclosure. Member Cottier asked if two street trees on College meet the street tree standards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Vosburg replied that speed bumps were often thought of as a traffic calming measure, but create serious problems for emergency vehicles. It is not a practice that they would not want to set a precedent, even with this experimental development. Mr. Vosburg did not think there would be a speed problem on Raccoon Circle. It is a very narrow street and is curvlinear. Chairman Clements asked if the motion included the plan as, is with the one-way. Member Walker responded that was correct. Chairman Clements commented that she thought that this was an innovative project and was excited about a project that reduces the amount of asphalt and pavement put in this development. Member Strom commented on the safety issue and that he did not feel that sidewalks on the interior of the project would not make a difference and keep children out of the street. Member Walker thought that the speed on Raccoon Circle would be would be self - enforcing by the residents that live in the development. Member Cottier hoped that there would be a channel that the results of this development would get back to other developers showing this type of development can work. The motion was approved 5-0. Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project recommending approval including a variance to Criteria 4 of the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Uses Point Chart. It should also include the standard engineering condition that was not listed in the staff report. Mr. Ludwig noted two changes to the plan. One on the landscape plan, the 20 foot setback on North College has been changed. There would now be a 10-foot grass strip between the proposed curb on North College, a 4 foot sidewalk and a 6 foot planter. The pedestrian access on College would be improved with this change. Mr. Ludwig noted the other change being on the plan where the City is no longer receiving a 20- foot dedication for future right-of-way. The Engineering Departments analysis could not require that at this time due to the change of use not causing that for mitigation. L n f� 11 Vice Chairman: Jan Cottier Phone 221-3953 11 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rene Clements at 6:30 p.m. Board Members present included Gary Carnes, Rene Clements, Jan Cottier, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker. Members Bell and Fontane were absent. Staff Present included Blanchard, Olt, Vosburg, Eckman, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Deines, Herzig, Ludwig. Agenda Review: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, reviewed the continued discussion agenda items from April 24th: 15. #1-93B Ruby Tuesday at Shopko PUD - Final 16. #45-94A Bridgefield PUD, Phase I - Final 17. #8-95 Glenmoor Property Rezoning (Continued) 18. #11-95 Milan PUD - Preliminary and Final Ruby Tuesday at Shopko PUD - Final, #1-93B Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval with the following conditions. 1. The red neon tube lighting proposed to be located under the wood trim cornice around the building be deleted. ® 2. The standard final approval condition with regards to final utility plans and development agreement with the Engineering Department. Member Walker was also concerned with the satellite dish on the roof and the screening of the dish.