HomeMy WebLinkAboutOAK HILL APARTMENTS PUD - FINAL - 54-87V - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 2
Mr. Phillips had a point of clarification on the Agenda Review,
regarding Item 20. - Dakota Ridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary,
#60-91K, has been postponed until July 25, 1994.
Chair Clements moved for a separate vote on Consent items
2,3,5,6,9 due to a conflict of interest.
Item 4, Oak Hill Apartments was pulled by a citizen.
Member Winfree moved for approval of consent items
1,7,8,10,11,12,13.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
Member Fontane moved for approval of items 2,3,5,6,9.
Member Klataske seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0.
Item 4 - Oak Hill Apartments PUD - Final. #54-87V
Elizabeth Hinkel, 1100 Spanish Oak Ct was concerned because she
had not been notified of this final or the preliminary hearing
for this project and would like an explanation.
Steve Olt, Project Planner gave a review of the preliminary
approval, which was in March of 1994. The same plan that was
before the Board tonight.
Mr. Olt stated he would have to review the affected property
owner's list to see why Ms. Hinkel was not notified. There is a
minimum of 500 feet for notification, but this project exceeded
that.
Chair Clements asked Ms. Hinkel if she owned or rented.
Ms. Hinkel replied, own.
Mr. Olt asked for how long?
Ms. Hinkel replied, 5-years.
Mr. Phillips also responded by stating that we notify on
preliminary, but are not required to notify on final.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 27, 1994
Page 3
Chair Clements asked Ms. Hinkel if she received notice of the
preliminary hearing on March 28th.
Ms. Hinkel replied no, she did not.
Chair Clements replied that staff would be looking into why her
and her neighbors were not notified and get her a response.
Mr. Phillips asked if Ms. Hinkel had concerns or issues with this
project besides the notice, this was her chance to speak to this
item if she so desired.
Ms. Hinkel stated her concerns were with the 2 or 3 story high
rise buildings across the street from her. Also, the fact that
the neighborhood was growing very quickly with single family
dwellings and she did not feel that an apartment complex in the
area was appropriate at this point when another apartment complex
was being built at Wheaton and McMurry. She voiced her concerns
about growth.
Eldon ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that there might be
some confusion as to the location of this site. He located the
site on a slide and stated that Spanish Oak Ct. was over 1,000
feet away. That would explain why the 14 patio homes on Spanish
Oak Court did not get notified.
Chair Clements asked if that satisfied Ms. Hinkels concern.
Ms. Hinkel replied, yes.
Member Klataske moved for approval of Item 4, Oak Hill Apartments
PUD - Final.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION AGENDA
Item 14. Amendment to Section 29-526 (Land Development Guidance
System) of the City Code - Residential Density/Phasing, #35-94.
Mr. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, read the staff report
to the Board.
Member Klataske asked about the 2,500 feet required to a school
site, is that "line of site"?