PC Minutes 10/22/07 DRAFT

ITEM NO. 4:  PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PINE RIDGE PLAZA; 3215 OUSDAHL (SLD)

 

PDP-09-04-07: Preliminary Development Plan for Pine Ridge Plaza, located at 3215 Ousdahl Road. The plan proposes the construction of a 13,500 s.f. commercial business in multiple phases. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, LLC, for Chavez II Development, LLC, Property owner of record.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Sandra Day presented the item.

 

Commissioner Harkins stated that when the development occurs to the east of the area there will be a lot of people living in that area. He was curious about potential pedestrian access to shops.

 

Ms. Day said that it would not be a good area for pedestrians. She showed on the map that if there was a sidewalk brought all the way through it would need to cross a drainage area and service/loading areas. She said it would probably be better to bring a walk way to 33rd Street.

 

APPLIANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Dean Grob, Grob Engineering Services, was concerned about the condition to construct the entire parking area during Phase I of the development. It would require more grading and fill up front. He thought that Staff was concerned about the use of the building being changed in the future. He stated that the worst case scenario for parking would require 10-18 parking spaces for the first building. They did not need all 23 parking stalls.

 

Commissioner Moore asked if the parking was just a financial feasibility.

 

Mr. Grob stated that was correct, and for lack of use.

 

Commissioner Blaser asked if the applicant had to do fill wouldn’t they start the project with that since usually with build out the fill is all done at the same time.

 

Mr. Grob stated that if a dock was needed on the back it would not need to be filled to the same height.

 

Commissioner Harris asked if the use restrictions apply to Lot 1B.

 

Ms. Day replied no, the restrictions would only apply to all buildings on Lot 1A.

 

Commissioner Harris asked if the fill would go into the drainage easement.

 

Mr. Grob responded, no.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if constructing all parking was a condition.

 

Ms. Day stated that it was in the Staff Report but not listed in the conditions.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if part of the reduction the applicant should go ahead and construct them all at once.

 

Ms. Day replied that was correct.

 

Commissioner Harkins asked if there was middle ground on the parking and if they could require that the entire parking lot be grated out in the first phase of construction.

 

Commissioner Harris asked if parking was constructed as shown and then the second building required more parking, would there then be curbing around that area that would be taken out to meet those parking needs.

 

Ms. Day replied yes and showed on a map where the unpaved parking would be if they did not pave it.

 

Mr. Grob said that if the proposed building would be modified for another use, the additional parking would just be an added cost. He went on to say that if they changed the use of the building they would have to come back to Planning Commission to make that request.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei inquired if the entire parking lot was required to be finished would they also have to do grating.

 

Mr. Grob replied, yes.

 

Commissioner Lawson asked what the impact would be if the second building was taken out and if that would make parking simpler and more straight forward.

 

Ms. Day said not necessarily, she was not sure how much grating would be done in that area.

 

Commissioner Lawson asked if the parking would be sufficient if it were only for the first building.

 

Ms. Day replied that was correct. Adding another building would require more parking.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No public comment.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Harkins asked if the PDP was approved could it be changed without it coming back to Planning Commission.

 

Ms. Day said that it would be heard by Planning Commission if any changes were made.

 

Commissioner Harkins asked why all parking spaces were required if the applicant could not make changes without being heard by Planning Commission again.

 

Ms. Day said that Staff had concerns about the adequacy of the parking as it stands. If there was an additional tenant with vehicles associated with their business, there would be nowhere for the overflow parking to go. Staff was willing to look at an onsite parking condition for the FDP.

 

Commissioner Blaser stated that the standard would say to finish the entire parking lot.

 

Mr. Grob said that having the parking spaces was not going to change anything, all they would be doing was spending money and that it could be a $50,000 expense. There was already a condition that restricted retail uses so he felt that was enough.

 

Commissioner Lawson stated that there has been considerable review of the project. He did not feel it was the Commissions burden to modify the site for the applicant to accomplish what they want.

 

Commissioner Hird asked if the parking was adequate with the limitations on the building as proposed.

 

Ms. Day said possibly, it was unknown if a second tenant would change the factors. The second tenant might have vehicles for their business.

 

Commissioner Hird asked if there was a limitation on what type of tenant could occupy the building.

 

Ms. Day replied, yes.

 

Commissioner Hird was hesitant to make an applicant build something that was not needed right away.

 

Ms. Day said there was no requirement that applied to business vehicles and that was where the concern about parking came from.

 

Commissioner Harkins asked the applicant to address the cost of adding parking.

 

Mr. Grob thought there were 14 parking stalls with the initial plan. The original parking requirement of 1 space for every 200’. There would be a FDP for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd building. He went on to say that they cannot change anything without coming back to Planning Commission and the stipulations are there to keep them from doing that.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei said that maybe a condition that said 17 parking spaces would be the middle ground and then a decision could be made during the FDP.

 

Mr. McCullough said that a few islands could be reduced.

 

Commissioner Harris suggested that the condition say that all parking shall be provided on site. She thought it might be an easier way to address the issue.

 

Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Hird and felt that what the applicant proposed in the first phase was good. 

 

Commissioner Harkins asked if the applicant and Staff would be in agreement to changing the layout for Phase 1 to a total of 20 parking spaces for.

 

Mr. Grob preferred building 18 parking stalls with Phase 1.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Hird, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the Preliminary Development Plan based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      Approval of the following waivers and reductions

a.      Yard reductions along the north side to a minimum of 10’ side yard/peripheral yard setback;

b.      Yard reductions along the west side to 12 feet rear yard setback;

c.      Yard reductions along the east side to 15 feet front/peripheral yard setback;

d.      Off-street parking from 68 spaces to 23 spaces.

2.      Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to show the building entry to Building 1 & 2 oriented to the street either with direct access or an angled front entry to the buildings.

3.      Removal of the first stalls along the east property line on either side of the drive entrance and extension of that area as green space.

4.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following changes:

a.      Pursuant to City Code a minimum elevation for building opening (MEBO) for the lot shall be shown;

b.      Provision of a note that states that land uses shall be restricted for Lot 1A to contractor office/shop uses or those uses that have a parking ratio of 1 space per 400 NSF or larger. Retail uses that have a parking ratio between 1 space per 100 NSF to 1 space per 300 NSF has been excluded unless a revised Preliminary Development Plan is approved;

c.      Provision of a revised drawing to show a strike thru the listed uses on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that do not meet the recommend parking standard of 1 space per 400 NSF or larger;

d.      Revision to the note stating “These proposed setbacks are in conformance with the base district requirements” to “These proposed setbacks are in conformance with the setbacks for the adjacent CS zoning district”.

5.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to add the following notes:

a.      “Per City code Chapter IX Article 09-903 (B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.”

b.      Add the following notes to the “General Notes”:

                                                   i.      “The drainage easement will be privately-owned and maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing ownership and maintenance of same via individual owner maintenance.”

                                                  ii.      “No construction or maintenance of natural or non-natural structures or vegetative barriers (including but not limited to trees, shrubbery, berms, fence and walls) will be allowed within the drainage easements.”

6.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following revisions recommended by the Planning Commission that the initial development of the parking lot include a total of 18 spaces.

 

Motion carried 7-1-2, with Commissioner Lawson in opposition. Commissioners Eichhorn and Jennings abstained from the vote.