|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
July
18, 2000
Minutes
|
|
The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular
meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center. Members
present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Lori Hays, Lynn
Heath, Charles Malcom and Sheri Geisler. Others in attendance were Jim Orr,
City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City
Clerk/Administrator and Pam Darrow, Administrative Assistant. Quentin Coon was
absent.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman John
McEachern at 7:01 p.m.
|
Call to order
|
|
|
|
|
Review
of the minutes of the June 20, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning
Appeals meeting. Motion
to approve minutes as presented by Ron Roberts, seconded by Lynn Heath. Motion
carried 6 to 0, with Charles Malcom abstained as he was not at the subject
meeting.
Minutes
of the July 5, 2000 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received.
Minutes
of the July 11, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting were received.
Minutes of the June 27, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received.
|
Review of the minutes of
the June 20, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Committee and Staff Reports. None
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
from June 20, 2000, on a change in zoning district classification, Case
Z-2000-05 Village Crossing P.U.D., Lots 1 and 18 of Block 2, Andover Village
Addition, City of Andover.
Chairman McEachern
gave an overview of information from the June 20, 2000 meeting. It included
that the owners of the property have taken the 6.2 acres and designed a plan,
limiting themselves to 50,000 sq. feet in single story structures. This is
an 18.5% building coverage on this property, which is about half of what is allowed.
This will be a good upscale use. The balance of the property will be for
landscaping and parking. The owner is going to retain as many trees as
possible. There is 1200 linear feet of frontage on Andover Road.
Mr. Kaplan, is the agent for Dr.
A.J. Reed and Dr. George Howell. Mr. Russ Avey, a land use architect from
Baughman Company was also present on behalf of the applicant, as was the real
estate broker, Grant Tiedeman of J. P. Wiegand.
Mr. Kaplan stated that as a
direct result of the meeting in June, the owners of the property have made
several revisions in the Preliminary P.U.D. They include:
1. Converted
the P.U.D. to 2 parcels. Converted
the P.U.D. to 2 parcels.
2. Changed
the south 2/3 of the property to Parcel 1, to have B-2 Neighborhood Business
Zoning along with several other uses from the B-3 and the north 1/3 of the
property is Parcel 2, which they are asking to zone as B-1 Office Business
District.
3. Noted
that no special or conditional uses would be allowed in Parcel 2.
4. The
concern with traffic in the rear or west side of the property has resulted in
an interrupted service road. The road has no continuous flow of traffic from
the south to the north.
5. The
traffic will flow in the front, or east side of the property.
6. Alcohol
has been taken out of the requested uses. They have permitted for
restaurants that meet the Kansas statutes for alcohol service.
7. The
buffering wall between the residential neighborhood and the development has
been increased to an 8’ wall.
8. The
parking has all been put to the front or sides of the buildings.
Mr. Kaplan stated this is a
heavily landscaped area and the owner is keeping as many good trees as
possible. He also stated that due to the minimal building coverage there
will be plenty of room for drainage.
Mr. Kaplan stated that Andover Road has lost it’s residential flavor a long time ago. It is just a hard fact that
it is a commercial arterial road now. Mr. Kaplan stated that it appears the
biggest source of contention is Village Road. He stated he cannot see giving
up access on Village Road, he stated the access is very necessary. He also
believes the access should line up across from Braum’s access. Mr. Kaplan
asked the Commission to remember that this is a preliminary P.U.D. Mr.
Kaplan was asked to read the permitted uses that are requested for these
parcels, which he did. Parcel 1 included all uses in the B-2 Neighborhood
Business District and the following: antique shops, apparel stores,
automobile accessory and new or reconditioned parts stores, banks and
financial institutions, book and office supply stores, business and
professional offices, blueprinting and photostating establishments, camera
and photographic supply stores, carpet and rug stores, china and glassware
stores, dry goods stores, furniture stores, furrier shops (including the
incidental storage and conditioning of furs), garden shops (with 20 percent
outdoor storage), hobby shops and sales of electronic, entertainment and
communication equipment, interior decorating shops (including reupholstering,
marking of draperies, slipcovers and other similar articles which are
conducted as a part of, and secondary to, a retail occupation), jewelry
shops, leather goods and luggage stores, music stores (including musical
instrument sales and repair), newspaper, publishing and printing firms,
optical sales and services, paint and wallpaper stores, pet stores and
grooming shops, physical culture and health services such as a private
gymnasium and reducing salons, restaurants (including those with drive-in and
drive-thru facilities), schools (music, dance, or business, trade or college
classes), sewing machine sales and services, sporting goods stores, and child
care centers and preschools.
Parcel 2 is B-1 Office Business
District, except those uses listed as Special Uses and Conditional Uses.
Chairman McEachern re-opened the
public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Mrs. Terry Hardman of 233 Village Road addressed the Commission. She stated that her husband asked her to ask the
Commission why, if families buy homes with certain zoning next to them why
should the zoning change? Why should Village Road be the buffer? Why should
the speculators make profit? Mrs. Hardman asked when there would be a
traffic light at Village Road and Douglas. She stated that people from the
proposed development will use Village Road as access to other areas and it
will create a lot of traffic on Village Road.
Jo Schreiber of 216 Village Road addressed the Commission. She stated that the B-2 uses included drive-thru
and drive-in restaurants. She doesn’t feel this should be allowed. She
stated Village Road is already crowded and will be worse with the additional
entrances on Village Road. Her concern is with the additional traffic. It
is a very busy intersection and it is not feasible to an access there. She
is also concerned with the noise that will be generated.
John Cash of 306 Village Road
(lot 7) addressed the Commission. He stated his concerns were as follows:
1. Traffic.
2. B-1 zoning is more suitable
for buffer, not B-2 zoning.
3. Noise
4. Would like to see Village Road entrance off of Andover Road closed if the traffic increases. Feels it will be
safer for the kids.
Mr. Kaplan stated he doesn’t
understand why the people feel the traffic will go toward Village Road. A
lot of it will go to Andover Road. He feels the access on Village Road is very important for the flow of traffic onto the property. He also stated
there must be the ability to change zoning. Change must be able to happen.
There was a question by Joe
Schreiber regarding the hours of operation in these zoning districts. Les
Mangus stated there are no restrictions of hours of operation in the B-1
Office Business District. The B-2 Neighborhood Business District hours of
operation are 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mrs. Schreiber asked why there was no
restriction on hours of operation on Parcel 2. Mr. McEachern stated that B-1
is Office Business District and generally there are not late hours for this
type of use.
The public hearing was closed at 7:51 p.m.
|
CONTINUATION
OF PUBLIC HEARING from June 20, 2000, on a change in zoning district
classification, Case Z-2000-05 Village Crossing P.U.D., Lots 1 and 18 of
Block 2, Andover Village Addition, City of Andover.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 8
|
|
REZONING REPORT *
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
Z-2000-05
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
A.
J. Reed, Robert Kaplan, Agent.
|
|
REQUEST:
|
B-1
Business and R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to B-2 Neighborhood
Office District w/P.U.D. overlay.
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
Undeveloped
multi-family tract platted and zoned in 1977.
|
|
LOCATION:
|
West side of Andover Road between Village Road and Lexington.
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
6.2
acres.
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Retail
and office businesses.
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
B-1
Office Business.
|
|
South:
|
B-2 Neighborhood Business.
|
|
East:
|
R-1
Single-Family Residential
|
|
West:
|
R-2 Single-Family Residential.
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
1994 application for B-1 Office Business District on
Lot 18 was denied.
|
|
|
|
*
Note: This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their
findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their
rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H
of the Zoning Regulations. The responses provided need to be evaluated with
the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s
considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the
motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions
attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide
instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning
Administrator.
(As
per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)
|
|
H.
|
Amendments
to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a
change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the
report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing,
shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district
classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such
reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon
which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following
factors as guidelines:
|
|
|
|
FACTORS
AND FINDINGS:
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
1.
What is the character of
the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to
existing uses and their condition?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
See above
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
See above
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
2.
What is the current zoning
of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation
to the requested zoning change?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
See above
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
See above
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
3.
Is the length of time that
the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in
the consideration?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
No
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
4.
Would the request correct
an error in the application of these regulations?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
No
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
5.
Is the request caused by changed
or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what
is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
More commercial
being developed in all directions.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
6.
Do adequate sewage disposal
and water supply and all other necessary public facilities including street
access exist or can they be provided to serve the uses that would be
permitted on the subject property?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Water, sewer and
streets are in place._Drainage improvements are required.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Water, sewer and
streets are in place._Drainage improvements are required.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
7.
Would the subject property
need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for
rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
Dedication of
drainage easements as necessary
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
Dedication of
drainage easements as necessary
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
9.
Is suitable vacant land or
buildings available or not available for development that currently has the
same zoning as is requested?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
No B-2 or B-3
property is available in the immediate vicinity
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No B-2 or B-3
property is available in the immediate vicinity. One piece of B-1 near
Braum’s, and one piece of the applicant’s property is B-1.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
10.
If the request is for
business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or
employment opportunities?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A - no specific
use identified
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A - no specific
use identified, just general uses in the P.U.D.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
11.
Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
12.
To what extent would
removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request detrimentally
affect other property in the neighborhood?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Yes
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Yes, with limitations.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
13.
Would the request be
consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the
intent and purpose of these regulations?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
14.
Is the request in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the
implementation of the Plan?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Business uses on a
case by case review on Andover Road
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Comprehensive Plan
states business should be at major intersections and on a case by case basis
in the rest of the area
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Business uses
adjacent to single-family homes
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Devaluation of adjoining property, compatibility of
business uses near residential area, increased traffic, noise, lighting and
drainage.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
16.
Is there any information or
are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable
persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Approval as applied for with dedication of drainage
easement
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Approval as applied for with dedication of drainage
easement and modifications of available uses in the B-2 and B-2 districts
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
17.
If the request was not
approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety
and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the
hardship experienced by, the applicant?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
No greater detriment
to the public is perceived than the R-3 Multiple-Family zoning uses currently
permitted.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
No greater detriment
to the public is perceived than the R-3 Multiple-Family zoning uses currently
permitted
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
After
discussion among the Commission members it was agreed that on Parcel 1 the
following B-2 Neighborhood Business District uses would not be allowed on
this property:
7. Dry
Cleaning is allowed but no cleaning or processing will be allowed on the
premises
15. Restaurants but no drive-in
or drive-thru restaurants
16. No service stations
20. No bed and breakfast
facilities.
After discussion among the Commission members it was
agreed that on Parcel 2 the following B-1 Office Business District hours of
operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Many of the Commission members
were concerned because these uses have no buffer between them and the
residential neighborhood.
Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the
factors to evaluate the rezoning application, Lynn Heath moved that the
Planning Commission recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2000-05
be modified and approved to change B-1 Office Business District and R-3
Multiple-Family Residential District to two Parcels in a P.U.D. overlay.
Parcel 1 is to be B-2 Neighborhood Office District
with the following conditions:
1. Dry
cleaning facility is allowed but no cleaning or processing will be allowed on
the premises
2. Restaurants, but no
drive-in or drive-thru restaurants
3. No service stations
4. No bed and breakfast
facilities.
5. Pet stores will have
indoor kennels only.
6. No outside speakers.
7. Between
11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. there will be no businesses open for business.
Parcel 2 is to be zoned B-1 Office
Business District with the following conditions:
1. Hours of operation would
be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
2. No drive-in or
drive-thru restaurants will be allowed.
3. Automatic
Teller Machines accessory to financial institutions shall be located on the
east side of the principal structure.
Motion was seconded by Charles Malcom.
The discussion of the motion included discussion of
denial of the Village Road access.. It was decided that there will be an
access on Village Road allowed.
Discussion followed regarding the outside speaker issue
on Parcel 2. Joe Robertson stated that he was not interested in allowing the
noise that outside speakers cause. It is not desired. The neighbors should
not have to hear that noise.
There was a motion to amend the
original motion to change “3.No outside speakers” to “3. No outdoor speakers
except for financial institutions,” by John McEachern. There was no second
to this motion. It died for lack of second.
Ron Roberts made a motion to amend
the amended motion to prohibit all outdoor speakers and bells. The motion
was seconded by John McEachern. Motion carried 4-3 with Lori Hays, Charles
Malcom and Lynn Heath voting nay.
Charles Malcom made a motion to
amend the original motion to allow speakers with a reasonable audio, not
obtrusive to the adjoining neighborhood. Motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.
Motion carried 5-2 with John McEachern and Ron Roberts voting nay.
Voting on the original motion, the motion carried
5-2 with John McEachern and Ron Roberts voting nay.
CLOSING REMARKS:
Chairman
McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing.
Chairman
McEachern called for a recess of the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Meeting reconvened at 9:18 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review
of the Revised Final Plat of Heather’s Acres at 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover.
This case is continued from the June 20, 2000
meeting. Bob Kaplan represents the applicant and stated that the plat had
been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and he and his client have
concurred with the recommendations of the Committee.
Lynn
Heath is on the Subdivision Committee
and recapped the findings of the Committee as follows:
1. Comments from City Staff
regarding the review of the final plat must be adhered to.
2. A
50’ frontage road dedication must be given.
3. The frontage road will be
installed upon the request of the City of Andover and KDOT.
4. Should KDOT force the
closure of access to U.S. Hwy 54, property owner can utilize the 50’ frontage
for access.
5. One
access to be allowed on McCandless Road.
Joe Robertson asked if the comments by the Zoning
Administration had been taken care of. Les Mangus stated that we are
waiting for a plat binder and drainage plan.
Lynn Heath moved that the Planning Commission recommend
to the Governing Body that the Final Plat of Heather’s Acres be approved with
the following conditions:
1. Plat binder must be provided.
2. Drainage plan be provided.
3. Approval of existing highway driveway by
KDOT.
Motion was seconded by Ron Roberts. Motion carried
7-0.
|
Review of the Revised Final
Plat of Heather’s Acres at 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover.
|
|
|
|
|
Review the Final Plat of
the Talc Creek Addition located at Central Avenue and Lakeside Drive. Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates represented the applicant, Tony Durano. Mr. Hill stated that
this project was shown to the Subdivision Committee on July 8, 2000. Poe and
Associates have changed the plat to include all recommendations by the
Committee and City Staff. All the utilities on site are available. Mr. Hill
stated that Mr. Durano will open a State Farm office on that location. John
McEachern asked where the drainage will be. Kenny Hill stated the drainage
will go to the west and south side of the property as shown on the drainage
plan.
Lynn Heath made a
motion to approve the final plat of the Talc Creek Addition. The applicant is
to supply a plat binder or title insurance. The motion was seconded by Ron Roberts. Motion carried 7-0.
|
Review the Final Plat of
the Talc Creek Addition located at Central Avenue and Lakeside Drive.
|
|
|
|
|
LS-2000-01 Review the
proposed Lot Split of Lot 9, Block 1 Autumn Ridge Subdivision. James
Shimp of Mid-Kansas Engineering Consultants represented the owners of the
property. This is the same type of lot split as those that have been previously
approved in Lot 10 and 11.
Motion was made by Charles Malcom to approve the lot
split. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuation of the Public
Hearing for the amendments to the Site Plan Review Committee Procedure.
Chairman John McEachern opened the public hearing at 9:33 p.m. Chairman
McEachern asked if proper notice had been given. Les Mangus stated that it
had. Chairman McEachern asked if anyone from the public was here to address
the issue. Corey Hagemeister of 803 N. Andover Road addressed the Commission
regarding the issue. He asked where the change in this amendment was
compared to before. The changes have to do with the dollar amount of a
project and the extent of work required on a single-family residential
project, which is as follows:
1c. All screening and landscaping
adjacent to an arterial street, except those that are accessory to a
single-family residential property with an estimated total project value of
under $5000.00 and all landscaping with an estimated total project value
under $10,000 will be submitted to city staff for review and approval as long
as the project coincides with the Streetscape Guidelines and Preferred Tree
Species for Central Kansas.
Corey Hagemeister asked if
there is a list of requirements for this new submittal. Mr. Hagemeister
does not feel there is any direction in the criteria. Jim Orr stated that
the intention of this is to close loop holes in total project values, so no
one would have 3 $9,999 projects. Les Mangus stated there is not a list of
exact requirements, other than the criteria. Mr. Hagemeister wants exact
minimums listed for direction. Mr. Mangus stated if there are questions it
is a great idea to come before the Site Plan Review Committee for a
consultation. Mr. McEachern stated it is a good idea to utilize the Site
Plan Review Committee consultation. Lynn Heath stated if someone is doing
a $5,000 project the Site Plan Review Committee doesn’t want someone to have
to spend a lot on drawings.
Lynn Heath asked what the
relationship of the Site Plan Review Committee was to the Planning
Commission. Les Mangus stated the Site Plan Review Committee is autonomous
to the Planning Commission. The only time the Planning Commission would
review a case would be for an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr.
Mangus stated that every decision he makes as Zoning Administrator can be
appealed.
Corey Hagemeister asked that
the Planning Commission does not approve the criteria until it is clearer.
He asked that the criteria be more palatable for all involved. There are
several issues that need resolved.
Joe Robertson feels that
where it states “value” it should state “estimated total project value”.
The public hearing was closed
at 10:05 p.m.
Joe Robertson made a
motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the site plan approval
criteria with the following amendment:
1. Change
where it states “value” the criteria should state “estimated total project
value”.
The motion was seconded by
John McEachern. Motion carried 6-1 with Charles Malcom opposed.
Les Mangus stated he will recommend to the Site Plan
Review Committee that they come up with another checklist for existing
structures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public hearing on the
proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Article 7. Signs. Chairman
McEachern opened the public hearing at 10:16 p.m. Chairman McEachern asked
if anyone wanted to address the Commission.
Mr. Dave Riley, 427 E. Woods,
asked to address the Commission. He is concerned with restricting the size
of the wall signs to 5% of the wall area. He recommends the size to be 20%
of the wall area.
Les Mangus stated that a
person is able to have more than one type of sign in each district. There
was general discussion. Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at
10:30 p.m.
Joe Robertson felt that the
wall sign size should remain 5%. He feels the Commission should see how it
goes and if any problems arise adjust the size at that time.
Charles Malcom made a motion to recommend approval
of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Article 7. Signs, as
presented. Motion was seconded by Lynn Heath. Motion carried 7-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review the sketch of the
proposed PUD of the Decker/Kiser properties, located north of 21st Street between Andover Road and 153rd. Rob Hartman of
Professional Engineering Consultants represented the developer, Mr. Laham.
He stated this is approximately 500 acres. This proposed PUD is showing 320
acres of Single-family residential, 33.6 acres of duplexes, 26 acres with
apartments, 56 acres of commercial, 15 acres of office and 10 acres for
school. He stated all the neighborhoods would tie together with collector
streets. The collector streets are open face corridors. The proposal is to
create small residential neighborhoods throughout the project. The existing
hedgerows will be kept. Mr. Hartman stated the developer will follow the
natural southeast drainage and use water features to control run-off. He
stated there will be buffering land use between neighborhoods. The proposed
PUD has several parks along collector streets. Each neighborhood will have
it’s own park. The parks will be connected with jogging trails. Mr. Hartman
stated the commercial area is envisioned as upper end retail use with perhaps
a grocery store. At this point the proposed PUD has about 1,300 units.
The residential density is approximately 3 ½ dwelling units per acre,
including the apartments, multiple-family residential and single-family
residential. Mr. Hartman stated it will be approximately 15 or so years
before this property is completed. His client wanted to give the City an
initial look to make sure they are doing what the City wants done.
General discussion of the Commission followed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Set public hearing for
Zoning Regulations concerning Review Criteria for Wireless Communication
Facilities.
John McEachern made a
motion to set a public hearing on August 15, 2000 concerning the Review of
Criteria for Wireless Communication Facilities. Motion was seconded by Lynn
Heath. Motion carried 7-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member items. Sheri
Geisler asked where the public hearing was regarding expansion of the
Subdivision Regulations Jurisdiction. Les Mangus stated that the timing was
off to have proper public notice prior to the July meeting. The public
hearing is set for August 15, 2000.
Lori Hays would like the list
of names and addresses of the Council, Planning Commission and Site Plan
Review Committee and would also like the phone numbers. Pam Darrow will mail
lists out with phone numbers on 7/19/00.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion to adjourn was made
by Charles Malcom and seconded by John McEachern. Motion carried 7-0.
Meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|