Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSILVER OAKS - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 14-88E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 4 provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article H, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute; and 2) Two monument signs will be allowed with the location of such to be reviewed through an administrative change to the PUD that must be approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Chairman Strom commented that he was concerned about the total number of parking spaces, but, because of the fact that the various parties were working together on this and that there is space for additional parking in the future, he was willing to support the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. SILVER OAKS PUD - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CASE #14-88E Ted Shepard gave a brief description of the proposed project. Ric Hattman, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., represented the applicant. He gave a history of the proposed site. There was no public input on this item. Member O'Dell encouraged the developer to figure out a way to have larger lots in this area or have additional buffering to help the transition from the existing county -rural type area to the residential area. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 5 Member O'Dell asked how the school district was going to accommodate all the students in this area. Mr. Shepard stated that they held a second neighborhood meeting at which time the school was nearing its 568 student planned capacity. However, within the capacity there are students that are attending in a "grandfather" privilege who live outside the boundary area. Those students will be matriculated out freeing up some capacity. It is anticipated that approximately 75 students would be generated at full build -out of this proposed project. This would take a 2-3 year time frame. Member O'Dell asked what the plans were for signals on Taft Hill north of this project. Mr. Shepard stated that there were no plans for additional signals between Horsetooth Road and Taft Hill and Drake at this time. Mike Herzig, City Civil Engineer, stated that this project does fall under the criteria in the City Code that would require a review of off -site improvements because there are incomplete arterial streets in between the development and the developed part of the city. He added that there is a capital project in the Choices 95 program to work on Drake Road between Shields and Taft Hill. Member O'Dell asked that if the developer were to propose a neighborhood convenience center, would the developer have to amend the ODP. Mr. Shepard stated that this was correct, that it would be a secondary use. Member Cottier asked what the current designation was for Tract E. Mr. Shepard replied that the current designation was for a neighborhood convenience center which now contains approximately 2 acres of multi -family. Chairman Strom asked for clarification of designating the parcel as a primary use or secondary use. Mr. Shepard stated that the primary difference is that it creates a level of expectation. The history of this recommended condition was what the Board gave Oak Cottonwood Farm ODP in reference to the southwest corner of Harmony and Boardwalk where there was a request for a neighborhood convenience center ahead of a PUD. He stated that staff wished to be consistent • is Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 6 with that Board action. A secondary use takes away the vagueness of other uses that may be considered. The variance criteria would still have to be satisfied for the neighborhood center. Member O'Dell moved to approve Silver Oaks Amended Overall Development Plan with the condition that Tract E be redesignated to retail/commercial/office/business service as a primary use with neighborhood convenience center as a secondary use. Approval of neighborhood convenience center as a secondary would not be subject to an amended ODP. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. CAMERA CORNER, INC. PUD - FINAL - CASE #34-92A Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the proposed project. She stated that she had distributed to the Board eleven proposed points of refinement presented by the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association at the July 27, 1992 P&Z Board meeting. She stated that Point 4 has been amended since the P&Z worksession to state that the existing signage would be retained at the site but there would be a limitation to any future exterior advertising that would be related to the home occupation. Member Carroll asked if these 11 points would be part of the final or should they be conditions. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that to keep the record straight, they should be conditions which would be carried through and placed on the final site plan. Doug Donaldson, applicant and owner of Camera Corner, stated that he has a variance on the in -home business sign requirement. PUBLIC INPUT Emily Smith, 1000 W. Prospect and Vice -President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that the proposed wording satisfies the association's intent to protect the residential character of Shields Street. Therefore, the association board endorses the restrictions and conditions as legally defined by staff and the City Attorney's office. Harold Worth, 1501 S. Shields, requested that the Camera Corner PUD be denied. He stated that regardless of how limited the PUD for this property may be, it is a conversion of the property to an on -going commercial use. Once that precedent is set, the neighborhood has lost the battle. There will be little grounds for denying further commercial intrusions on .Shields