Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1ST BANK AT HARMONY MARKET PUD, 4TH FILING - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 54-87F - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES • P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 18 Member Clements-Cooney asked to clarify to the Board, the motion is to re-recommend to City Council? Mr. Waido agreed. Member Carroll asked about staff's recommendation of denial. Mr. Waldo stated that it was a request made by the property owners to extend the NCB boundary and staff recommends denial of that. Staff does recommend that the boundaries remain where they are currently. Member Clements-Cooney moved to recommend to City Council denial of the rezoning of the Westside Neighborhood Plan Rezoning 37-90A. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to recommend denial passed 4-0. HARMONY MARKET PUD, 1ST BANK, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, Case #54-87F Mr. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with conditions. Member Clements-Cooney asked if it would be in the Board's ability to approve Phase I and at a future date if the developer, when and if is ready to build the permanent structure, come back before the Board? Mr. Shepard stated that it is within the Board's ability, however, he felt it was premature to comment on that at this time until the applicant has made their presentation. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that it was their understanding that the basic question revolves around the architectural details of the permanent building. Mr. Ward stated that a number of alternatives were looked at from the beginning on this site. The elevations that were included on the submittal were fairly simple. He stated that a gable entry skylight that would penetrate into the building that probably picks up on some of the other details at Harmony Market was considered. Mr. Ward stated that the reason that the gable entry feature was not included on the plans in the packet basically revolved around the large existing Cottonwood Tree. - ler • • P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 19 Mr. Ward stated if the Board was comfortable with what was proposed, then the developers, etc. would rather not come back before the Board and workout the details with Staff. He stated that if the Board is comfortable with Staff's approval then it could just be made a condition of approval and not have to come back before the Board. Member O'Dell asked if what is being proposed is that the Board conceptually give the project some approval and then the Staff give it final approval at the time the permanent building is constructed? Mr. Ward stated that the final PUD and the elevations be approved and if there were to be any modifications to the plan or elevations then at that time could come back before the Board. Basically, the application is for approval of both phases of the development. Member O'Dell stated that one concern of approving something right now is that a lot changes in five years and would hate to hold 1ST Bank to some kind of design of a building that since discovered does not work very well or is out-of-date. There would always be the option of the applicant to come back. Mr. Ward replied that the applicant could come back and it was reviewed that under the ordinary time limits any project could be approved and nothing could be done for three years. He stated that it was perceived that the applicant is coming in with a temporary building and a permanent building within a 3 - 5 year timeframe. Member Cottier stated that she does not recall approving the temporary building and finds it somewhat confusing to have one approval for two different buildings. She stated that it is obvious the permanent structure is the more important one, but there needs to be some concern as to what is going to be out there for five years. She asked if there was any better time schedule to present to the Board as to when the permanent structure would be built? Mr. Ward responded that it depends on the market response. Such as what the customer base is for the bank and it also gives 1ST Bank a little bit more experience with the specific customers demand. He stated that it is frequently seen that the Board approves projects with a construction phasing plan and felt that phased construction is not completely new. He stated that 1ST Bank has done this type of project on 20 previous sites. IIP P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 20 Member Carroll felt that based upon neighborhood and staff comments and the plan, that this was a pretty good use for the property. The concerns are with the design of the final building, which seemed somewhat stark with the layout. He felt that there would be quite a bit of time for the Board, the bank and the architects to push a design around and come back with something that was in more detail. He asked if this idea creates a hardship for the parties involved? Mr. Ward stated that the only hardship is the uncertainty on the applicant's part about what the City may or may not find acceptable for final architecture and what the cost implications are. He felt that if the applicant only came in to receive approval for the temporary structure, that the City would also want something on file as to the level of quality that would be for a permanent building. He would like to establish what everyone's expectations are for the final building. Member Clements-Cooney stated that the Board reviewed slides of a design that was in the packet. Since the worksession the design has changed and she felt that the Board has not had sufficient time to adequately review the design. She felt that a permanent bank would be appropriate, but does not feel comfortable not having enough time to review or give input. Member Cottier asked for a review of traffic circulation. Mr. Ward stated that what the applicant has tried to do is put as much parking improvement in its permanent location. The entrance off of Lemay that enters into Steeles would also be used as an entryway. The same traffic circulation for the permanent building would be for the temporary building. Member Cottier asked if thought was given to circulate traffic counter clockwise? Reasoning behind that question is because the cars approaching the ATM's would be headed north and the headlights would shine across Harmony into residences. Mr. Ward stated that the structure across Harmony is a church and would not be impacted by the headlights. The primary reason is to get the driver's side against the building for the ATM. The other factor taken into consideration were trees. If traffic were to circulate counter clockwise then the trees would need to be destroyed. Mr. Shepard stated that he failed to mention the condition regarding the temporary nature of the modular structure and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the modular is removed after five years with some avenues for amending the PUD (that is the first condition). The second condition relates to the development agreement and utility plans. i • P&Z Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 Page 21 Member Clements-Cooney moved approval of 1ST Bank at Harmony Market Preliminary and Final for the modular and Preliminary for the permanent structure with the conditions as stated by staff. Mr. Shepard stated if that is the condition, then Mr. Eckman stated that we must add a clause to condition number one. Mr. Eckman stated that the condition was based upon that the Board might approve preliminary and final altogether and felt that the motion that was made would cover the clause; therefore, no clause would be added. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Clements-Cooney stated that she is not comfortable approving final without something before her to review. She would like to see the design presented to the Board placed in a packet for review before she could make final approval. Member Carroll stated he agreed with Member Clements-Cooney and felt that the design presented tonight is a marked improvement over the starkness of the first design. He felt it was not the intent of the Board to add expense to the bank, but simply add some architectural detail. He felt it is placed at a very important intersection to the City and would like to see some integration. The motion to approve passed 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Waido stated that the Board received a memo from Sherry Albertson-Clark relating to extending conditions for a two-month period to complete development agreements for four or five projects that are specifically listed in the memo. Member O'Dell asked if this was somewhat repetitive of what the Board has been doing in past months extending the development agreements for some hangers on and some new ones? Mr. Waido stated that was correct. Member O'Dell asked if there were any anticipated dates that these may be completed?