Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDMENT TO PONDEROSA PARK PUD - PRELIMINARY - 17-87 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 AMENDM= TO PONDEROSA PARK PUD - Preliminary - #17-87 Debbie deBesche gave staff description of amended request for 20 detached patio homes. Dick Rutherford, representing John Martin, owner, stated he was available to answer questions. Mrs. Patricia A. Hoffman, owner Skyline Mobile Home Park, section to the east of the proposed project, had several major concerns. The original application in 1978 was for four phases. Phase 1 ran into financial diffi- culty and was not completed until 1983 and the open space had not yet been completed. The open space is currently weeds and Canadian thistle and very undesirable. She has talked with the City who indicated no future permits would be issued until this phase was finished. She was also concerned about Phase 2 which cuts out all access to the open active area by removing a sidewalk and closing off access in two other locations. She reiterated that a developer should not be allowed to start the next phase without first completing Phase 1. Mrs. deBesche indicated there was a diagram in the packet showing approxi- mately a 20 foot open space area. The original landscape plan calls for 20 trees and there are currently at least that many plus several plantings. Staff felt there was not enough traffic generated to the open area to require a sidewalk. Mrs. Hoffman stated that, because the plan was approved with the sidewalk, the sidewalk should not be arbitrarily deleted. She also claimed the open space area was nothing but weeds and their concern was that the next phase would also contain a similar weedy area. Mrs. deBesche noted all open areas are in native grasses. The site is mowed to about four inches and some of the neighboring lots have even incorporated the open space into their own lawn. Planning & Zoning Bo* Minutes • May 18, 1987 page 3 Mrs. Hoffman felt nothing had been mowed and nothing was in the open space but weeds. Member Dow asked if any administrative changes had been filed on the pro- ject. Mrs. deBesche indicated landscaping requirements were in the development plan. Staff's feeling is that the only noncompliance is the missing side- walk. Mrs. Hoffman added that the City had received several letters addressing these points and hoped the Board was aware of these. Dick Rutherford explained this project was on the north half_ of the origi- nal PUD. The open area is Tract E and the storm water detention pond. Tract E currently has horses and the weeds are not extremely high. In the new plan the sidewalk circles the development allowing access to the green areas. This sidewalk is an added sidewalk. Mr. Martin is the owner of the north half of the original PUD while Mr. Betz owns the south half. Member Lang asked for clarification on how the handout related to the orig- inal PUD and Mrs. deBesche explained the four phases noting the project tonight is for Phases 3 and 4. Phase 1 is the only developed phase, how- ever, some improvements have been installed and these will meet code by final plan review. Mrs. Hoffman presented Member Dow with a large original landscape plan. Mr. Rutherford indicated much of Mrs. Hoffman's concerns were with Mr. Betz's property and went on to explain a walk would be eliminated on the south side of the Martin project. Member Dow asked if the applicant would be willing to add the previously proposed sidewalk and Mr. Rutherford replied they would if the City really felt it was an integral part of the plan. Mrs. Hoffman felt the agreement was binding on future owners and no excep- tions should be made. If the open space was not completed the bond should not have been refunded to Mr. Betz. If the developer doesn't perform the City is liable. Member Edwards noted he had been unaware of any opposition but now felt sane issues were unresolved and suggested tabling the item. Member Kern seconded stating a good share of the material hadn't reached the Board until this evening and he hadn't reviewed it. Member Brown requested an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr. Rutherford stated a neighborhood meeting had been held and these items had not been part of the discussion. The developer felt he was ready to proceed on the item and it would not be fair to table it at this time. Planning & Zoning B(D-*Minut(-s May 18, 1987 page 4 Mrs. Hoffman indicated objections had been raised at the neighborhood meet- ing as well as the letters written to the City. Paul Eckman, City Attorney, noted the applicant was entitled to a decision if he desired it. Board could impose conditions on the project as: 1) Sidewalk, Phase 1 - should this be installed? relocated? 2) Phasing Agree- ment - should this be amended to allow Phases 3 and 4 ahead of Phase 2? 3) Phase 1 - is it complete? Landscaping appears to be the primary issue as well as location of mounds of dirt. These items as well as who the owner of. the property is could be resolved. If the common space is owned by another party as Mrs. Hoffman believes this could be delayed until final submittal. Member O'Dell asked when new ownership occurred and Mr. Rutherford indi- cated some years ago. Mr. Martin owns the north half of the PUD and Paul Betz owns Phase 2 and the open space in Phase 1. John Martin, owner of Phases 3 and 4, stated he had tried hard to ccnply with the City's requirements and felt it unfair to keep him from developing the property. Mr. Betz could conceivably wait ten years before developing his Phase 2. Member O'Dell concurred but felt it would be to Mr. Martin's advantage to have the open space properly resolved. Mr. Martin explained he had no say in Phase 2. Member O'Dell asked if Mr. Martin intended for the open area in his half of Tract E to be active space with swings, etc. and Mr. Martin responded it would be mowed native grasses. Chairman Crews asked if the sidewalk would be built. Mr. Martin replied there was access on the east side of the project. Member Dow felt the issue was whether conditions of a prior PUD would apply to this tract. He thought the project should be approved with conditions addressing the items in questions. If the former agreement was binding additional requirements could be added; however, the applicant should have a decision tonight. Chairman Crews reminded the Board of the motion to table. Mr. Martin also reiterated his desire for a decision tonight. Member Edwards asked that his earlier motion be rescinded and requested staff and legal council to formulate some conditions. Member Kern also agreed to withdraw his second. Spike Hoffman, Patricia Hoffman's son, added the biggest problem was not Mr. Martin but the contract saying Phase 1 needed to be completed prior to other development. Member Lang asked if the sidewalk was a Phase 1 item. Planning & Zoning BoMinutes May 13, 1987 page 5 • Mr. Eckman noted the drawings show the sidewalk in Phase 1 and it is defi- nitely not completed. Landscaping may be installed. Responsibility for completion needs to be adequately addressed. Member Brown asked what had happed to the bond. Mr. Eckman stated First Interstate had no record of the bond which was ini- tially a Certificate of Deposit which expired in 1980. Phase 1 improve- ments needed to be completed to the City's satisfaction and whether it was appropriate'to juggle the phasing needed to be resolved. Member Brown questioned whether Mr. Martin could be held responsible for improvements on land that was not his. Mr. Eckman felt that was a diffi- cult question; however, the agreement applied to the entire parcel. Mr. Martin purchased the property subject to the conditions of the parcel but the City should work with him. Mrs. deBesche interjected the bond covered the landscaping only and did not apply to the sidewalk. Member O'Dell questioned who was responsible for the open area. Mrs. deBesche believed there was once a homeowner's association but that it no longer existed. Mrs. O'Dell asked what the City could do. Mrs. deBesche indicated site and landscape covenants normally cover this. Member O'Dell felt Mr. Martin should not be responsible; perhaps the people who lived there, the original owner or original applicant. Mrs. deBesche added City Manager Steve Burkett responded in a June 24, 1986, letter that the landscaping was installed. Member Dow moved to approve the Amendment to Ponderosa PUD with three con- ditions: 1) Under the existing four phase plan a legal questions had been raised and needed to be examined and resolved, 2) Staff needed to reccm- mend to the Board whether Phases 1 through 4 should be modified to accom- modate requirements, and 3) as part of the review, status of current ameni- ties as sidewalk and landscaping needed to be reviewed. Member O'Dell sec- onded. Mrs. Hoffman questioned what happens when a homeowner's association folds and no one takes care of the property. Some information also was not available to the new planners and how can original PUD's be properly reviewed to compliance. Her major concern was to have the weeds down and someone to take care of the open area. Chairman Crews thanked the audience for input. Planning & Zoning BOO Minutes • May 18, 1987 page 6 Member Brown asked if motion included access to the open space. Member Dow said it was not intended to require completion of the sidewalk but that it be looked into. Member Edwards thanked Member Dow for his assistance in stating the motion. Motion to approve with conditions carried 7-0. 4. i