Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWHITHAM PROPERTY - ODP - 24-02B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 10 The motion was approved 6-1, with Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon voting in the negative. Project: Kaufman Barn, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non -Conforming Use Description: Request to replace three existing dilapidaXd horse sheds with a new barn. The new am \ would be 1,480 s.f. featuring six hors stalls. \ The property is located on 3.3 acrge at 2304 West Prospect Road and is zon RL, Low - Density Residential. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimonv. Written Comments s City Planner Ted Shepard stated th this r worksession and he distributed some otc neighbor. ce: was not discussed at s of the site to the Board from a Rosalie and Augustine Godinez, 150 Ponderosa Drive, gave their testimony to the Board. She stated that the pict es were fro rr.her. Ms. Godinez stated that her concern lies /wouloccur ation f the barn and its\proximity to her home. She stated that her viens ine would be lost. She stated that the property owner has been dure along her fence line irt,the past and asked what kind of upkeoccur with the new barn. She stated that she was concerned about als, such as chicken and sheep, nd the health department was cGodinez stated that three sheds h e been taken down and that thw wants to put up six sheds. Mr. Godinez ated that he would like to see the barn located where the sheds were torn wn. Cruz dinez, brother-in-law of the former speaker, gave his testimony to the, Boar . He were concern about the flies and odor in the area as well as possbi m e if the barn were built. He stated that the bam could be located in another ea on the property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 9 Chairperson Torgerson stated that one of the Land Use Code changes that will be considered tonight is putting an increased buffer between residential and industrial uses, primarily because of this project. Bert Pedry (sp?), owner of land adjacent to Mr. Dijack and the site in question, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated concern about the land being zoned as industrial and being used as agricultural. Mr. Sherman stated that the buffer between the site and Imutek is just a generic kind of buffer, the width of which will be determined with future, site -specific development applications. Chairperson Torgerson stated that regardless of the buffer shown on the ODP, they will have to comply with the Land Use Code standards when they come in with a PDP, which would include the standard being considered later tonight. Planner Olt replied that was correct. Director Gloss stated that the Land Use Code, at the present time, does not require that buffers be shown on an ODP. Member Craig moved for approval of Whitham Property, Overall Development Plan, File #24-02B. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would not support the motion. He stated that he felt like this project would be detrimental to the APF in the area. He also stated that the project was not in total compliance with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Member Craig stated agreement with Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon; however, she stated that she would support the motion because of the purview of the Board at ODP stage. Member Colton stated that the improvements needed in the area need to be paid for by development; there will never be enough money to pay for them with tax initiatives. Member Meyer stated that we need to be aware that we are imposing on some people in the area and stated that the people buying houses need to be made aware of the industry in the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 8 Member Craig stated that though she appreciated that, she was comfortable that the park would have connectivity with the first -built residences. Member Schmidt asked if all phases of this project would have to meet requirements for impacts on Timberline and Vine at the time that they come forth with a PDP. Planner Olt replied that they would have to meet public facilities requirements at time of PDP review. Member Schmidt asked if there was a portion of the ODP that would be outside the '/z mile area from Timberline and Vine which would therefore keep them from having to meet the APF requirements. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations, replied that APF would always apply, no matter where on the site they build. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why a short-term traffic impact analysis was not performed. Mr. Stanford replied that, at the ODP level, long-term is usually all that is requested. As portions of the project start coming in at PDP stage, the short-term detail is analyzed. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why he did not receive Appendix B of the traffic report. Planner Olt replied that the Appendix was the crunch numbers. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon replied that he wanted them. He stated concern about the APF not being addressed at the ODP level. Public Input Henry Dijack, citizen, gave his testimony to the Board. He spoke about the 40- foot buffer zone. He stated that his plant is operated often 24 hours a day with trucks coming in early in the morning. He stated that once the homes are put in there, the owners will complain. He asked if perhaps a park could be put in on the other side of the buffer. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 7 _Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig stated that she wanted assurance that Greenfields Court would be connecting through and that there is some kind of understanding with the railroad that the road could cross the tracks at grade. She stated concern over the level of service on Vine, though it cannot really be considered at ODP level. Planner Olt showed the area on the site plan. Tom Reiff, Transportation Planner, stated that the City has met with the railroad representatives from Great Western and has spoken with the Public Utilities Commission regarding the crossing. He stated that the railroad representatives did not see a problem with the crossing at grade as the line is not a main line, just a spur. Member Craig asked why the neighborhood park was being put in the lower corner and noted that there may be as many as 500 homes in the area before a neighborhood park is in place. She stated that the Land Use Code states that the park needs to be where 90% of the housing can get to it. She stated that the point of LMN zoning is to build neighborhoods with gathering places. Planner Olt replied that the ODP shows two forms of parks in this location, due to one park being on the Parks Master Plan. It could occur in one of two locations. There is one area that could be a possible public neighborhood park about 8 acres in size. There is another 160 acre parcel to the west, currently in the rezoning process, where it could occur. The preference is to locate it on the Eastridge site, however, there may be some potential wetland issues. Craig Foreman of the Parks Department, asked the developer to show this park in this particular site. There will also be a small neighborhood park, about 1 acre in size, which will satisfy the LMN zone district requirements. It is possible that if the public neighborhood park weren't to occur, that one could move to another location. Member Craig asked what triggers the developer to have to put the park in. Planner Olt replied that he believed the park would have to be built with the initial phase because there are no other parks within the minimum required distance. Roger Sherman, BHA Design, stated that there were reasons for the parks to be located where they were shown including the locations of the neighborhood center and nearby natural areas. However, Mr. Sherman stated that it would be alright to move the park to the north if that were a concern of the Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 6 Member Carpenter stated that she was okay with not putting the use in UE to ht but stated that the idea did need to be addressed. It could be workable with correct parameters. Urban Estate is really the only zone in which the idea mak sense, from a business point of view. Vice-Chairpersonavaldon moved for approval of the --Small Scale Events Center to be added to Article 5 and to commercial,zones and to postpone considering adding the nition to Urban Estate to the spring Land Use Code revisions to allow for appropriate performance standards to be discussed. Member Colton seconded the motion. Planner Shepard stated that.the motion -makers should be aware that the petitioners still have the abi ity, under the Land Use Code,,to come in as a text amendment which woufd be a very specific kind of request. - Member Colton -stated that we need to make sure protections are ih place for the residents of -the Urban Estate zones. T 'motion was approved 7-0. Project: Whitham Property — Overall Development Plan, #24-02B Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan consisting of proposed uses such as single- family detached residential, two-family residential, single-family attached residential, multi -family residential, a neighborhood center, and a neighborhood park on 160.3 acres. The property is located on the south side of East Vine Drive, east of North Timberline Road, and west of Interstate 25. The property is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Approval Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone:(H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll Call: Gavaldon, Meyer, Schmidt, Colton, Carpenter, Craig and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Jones, Virata, Stringer, Joy, Stanford, Reiff, Hamdan, D. Moore, Stokes, Barnes, Deines, and Williams. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. #24-02B Whitham Property, Overall Development Plan. (PULLED TO DISCUSSION — CRAIG) Discussion Agenda: 2. #18-03 Kaufman Barn, Adding a Structure to a Property with a Non - Conforming Use. (CONTINUED TO 12/4/03) 3. #29-01A Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan. (CONTINUED TO 12/4/03 per the applicant's request) Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following item: 4. Recommendation to City Council regarding the Fall 2003 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Board is the final authority on the following item: 5. #26-01 Redtail, Project Development Plan. Other Business: Changes to the Natural Areas Policy Plan in the Windsor/Timnath IGA City Planner Ted Shepard recommending dividing the Biannual Land Use Code Revisions into two parts, first discussing the Small Scale Events Center, then the remainder of the item. Member Craig asked to pull the Whitham Property, Overall Development Plan, #24-02B, to the discussion agenda.