HomeMy WebLinkAboutGLENMOOR DRIVE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 8-95A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Hearing
November 20, 1995
Page 19
Mr. Peterson stated that the landscaping, not the parking lot, will drive the design. The
developer will be providing 55 parking spaces for this development. He added that the
driveway is about 24 feet and the sidewalks will meet city standards. He mentioned
that a bike path was built previously to protect the school crossing on Taft Hill to provide
a back access to the school. The sidewalks will provide a safer access.
Member Colton had concerns that this would be a high density area.
Mr. Ludwig replied that there will be higher density to the south and west of the site.
Glenmoor PUD is a little less dense than this project. The city's intent for infill policies
is the transition between single family residential to higher density mutli-family.
Member Colton moved to grant approval of the variance as stated in the last
subsection of the Executive Summary of the Staff Report.
Member Davidson seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
Member Strom moved approval of Glenmoor Drive PUD Preliminary with the
condition regarding the stormwater channel and the wetlands and items 1
through 3 of the Findings/Facts of the Staff Report.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
CHRIST FELLOWSHIP CHURCH FINAL SUBDIVISION - #29-94B
Ward Luthi states he pulled this item for discussion because he had concerns relating
to an overall consideration under Part 3 which will operate as a day care center with 90-
120 students, trip generations, future development in the area and how it fits in with the
goals and policies as well as the LDGS.
Ted Shepard, Project Planner, stated that this is a request for a subdivision, not a PUD
nor is it reviewed by the LDGS. It is reviewed by the Subdivision and Zoning codes. In
terms of the day care and the school, trip generation that was factored into the traffic
study states that all impacted intersections will remain at Level of Service D or better.
The day care and the school are uses -by -.right and are permitted uses in the zone, as is
the church.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
November 20, 1995
Page 18
project. This channel will establish wetlands and allows them to pass the 100 year
flood through this area without flooding it. Other improvements were identified and
there are restrictions whether this project is approved or not.
Mr. Schlueter stated that this project will beat the peak of the basin out of there. This
basin was built in the 1960s and is very narrow. One of the properties has the drainage
way going through the middle of it. In order to redesign the drainage way, that property
will have to be purchased by the City. Another alternative is to require detention. This
would add to the peak flows which would be higher.
Matt Delich, traffic consultant, stated the current operation at the intersection of
Elizabeth and Glenmoor are Level of Service C. With the addition of the site, the left
turn still falls within Level of Service D during the pm peak hour. During the am peak
hour it drops to Level of Service B. He added that there was no limit to the scope of a
traffic survey.
Kerrie Ashbeck, City Engineering Department, stated most vehicles who turn left onto
Elizabeth would utilize Glenmoor Drive since that is the most direct street out of this
development.
Member Davidson asked what the distance is between the buildings that are parallel to
each other.
Mr. Couch replied that the average distance is between 10 and 15 feet.
Member Davidson questioned the rationale of the parking being next to the street and
the building setback.
Mr. Couch stated that the attempt was to provide some screening to the parking to the
front. Two of the units were downsized from tri-plexes to duplexes and the remaining
units are tri-plexes which were pushed back as far as possible to provide some
separation between the street and the residences. He demonstrated on the slides
where plantings and berming will be located.
Mr. Ludwig stated that currently the street standards require an attached sidewalk to
the street which is included in this development. Instead of having one continuous
parking lot along the street and in front of all the residences, landscaping is between
each building so there is a visual break between each parking lot.
0 0
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
November 20, 1995
Page 17
the channel will accommodate wetland vegetation. The freeboard that will carry water
will take a portion of the storm flow out of the channel and onto the adjacent property.
The applicant will need to acquire easements from those property owners who are
aware of this.
Chairperson Carnes cited the condition that amends the recommendation which states
that the final site plan and engineering drawings for this project shall reflect a
stormwater channel designed so as to accommodate a wetland lined bottom to replace
existing wetlands in a ratio of at least 1 to 1 and obtain easements as required to
accommodate stormwater flow.
Member Bell asked for a brief discussion related to traffic issue of this project.
Mr. Ludwig replied that the applicant is required to complete the connection of
Glenmoor Drive. This is why Staff supported a variance to the Solar Orientation Criteria
on the basis that by being forced to have a north/south street it would be impossible to
meet that criteria.
Tom Peterson, applicant, stated that he was available for any questions.
CITIZEN INPUT
A resident that lives on Skyline asked if these mutli-family units were apartments or
condos. She had concerns with the storm sewer situation and traffic on Skyline coming
off of Plum and Glenmoor.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Mr. Peterson stated that the applicant is still in the decision -making process as to
whether the multi -family units will be rental or ownership units. There is the option to do
either.
Mr. Ludwig stated that there are no provisions in the code that can dictate whether a
property is rental or owner -occupied. Residential is evaluated as a land use and rental
versus ownership is not a land use.
Jeff Couch, civil consultant, stated that this project has keyed a revision to the master
plan for the West Plum Street basin in the city. This basin drains this entire area west
of Overland Trail down through this project into the detention pond at Fort Ram. This
project takes a portion of the master plan improvements and completes it through the
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
November 20, 1995
Page 16
Member Mickelsen stated that issues such as parking versus pedestrian traffic needs to
be resolved. She did not believe that it would not be fair to not allow future growth of
businesses in this area because of the possibility that the major land owners may want
to expand in the future.
Member Colton believed that it is not a matter of creating more parking but the property
owner has the right to make sure that he has parking for his business and is not utilized
by others that have leased it or mitigated the circumstances. Until an agreement is
made, he could not support the variance.
Member Strom moved to postpone Roberto's Burritos Expansion until the
December meeting and directed Staff to attempt to convene a meeting between
the major interested
parties and the businesses in this area to find a way to facilitate an agreement
that will give the Board a longer term perspective on the parking in this block.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion to postpone carried 5-1 with Member Mickelsen in the negative.
GLENMOOR DRIVE PUD - PRELIMINARY - #8-95
Member Bell pulled this item to discuss the wetlands on this site and to discuss the
letter regarding the traffic situation.
Mike Ludwig, Project Planner, stated that a memo from Rob Wilkinson, from the City's
Natural Resources Department, and Glen Schlueter, from Stormwater Utility
Department, indicated that a connection of the road does go through the wetlands area.
Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources Department, pointed out the location of the
wetlands. He stated that there are a couple of wetland patches in the vicinity of the
roadway. These wetlands have been surveyed for rare plants but none were found.
There are also wetlands located along some drainage ditches that surround the site
and off site to the west. He had informed the developer that the stormwater facilities
needed to be designed in such a way that the wetlands that were being disturbed would
be replaced within the limits of the stormwater facilities. There is hydrology to do this
and the wetlands that are on site are not of such unique character that they could be
replaced. The condition addresses the need to make sure that the engineering plans
are coordinated with site plans and the need to protect or replace wetlands such that