PC Minutes 5/19/08 DRAFT
ITEM NO.
2
PDP-02-02-08: Preliminary Development Plan for
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Patterson
stated that a deferral of the item had been requested by attorney Ron Schneider, representing Bob and Betty Lichtwardt (the deferral
request was included as communication in the Planning Commission online
packet.)
Mr. John Miller,
staff attorney, advised the Planning Commissioners that the deferment decision
was up to them and that if they would like to hold a public hearing they had
the legal authority to do so.
Commissioner
Moore asked if the item would still be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals if
Planning Commission decided to hear the item tonight.
Mr. Miller
replied, yes, the item will still be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals in
June.
Commissioner
Harris asked if the Board of Zoning Appeals could find what Planning Commission
does inappropriate.
Mr. Miller said
that it was possible that the Board of Zoning Appeals could find that Planning
Commission was incorrect.
Commissioner
Harris inquired about the ramifications of their decision.
Mr. Miller stated
that there is a 30 day appeal procedure and anyone can appeal the decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals, so the applicant would have the ability to do so.
Planning
Commission agreed to hear the item tonight instead of deferring it.
Mr. McCullough
stated that the Code requires that when you rezone to a PD Overlay you have to
have a concurrent PDP application with that, so they are processed
concurrently. At the previous Planning Commission meeting the hearing was
opened for the PD rezoning first and was recommend for approval then the PDP
hearing was opened. Planning Commission determined that the applicant should go
back to the neighborhood and work out issues. Staff agreed that night to hold
the PD rezoning request until the PDP caught up with the PD rezoning request.
Legal notice was posted in the paper for the PDP. There was no need to do that
with the PD since Planning Commission already considered that and made a
recommendation for City Commission. He believed that Mr. & Ms. Lichtwardt
were appealing that process of separating out the PDP from the PD because they
did not believe that they can be separated. They felt that if the PDP was
changed substantially that the PD rezoning had to be reopened and reheard. This
was not staffs position. Staffs position is that it is still running its
process and that the PDP that was previously heard is still the same conceptual
plan. The decision making body has not seen either one.
Commissioner
Eichhorn asked Mr. Belot if he meet with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Belot said that he personally did not meet with the
neighbors but that the developers did. He stated that the neighbors also met
with staff. He said that the plan was changed to reflect those changes.
Mr. Ron Schneider
explained the reasons for their deferral request and referenced the letter that
was included in the Planning Commission online packet.
Commissioner
Harris was concerned about legality issues and felt that they were following
the spirit of the Code but she was not sure if they were following the law.
Mr. Patterson
presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Allen Belot,
gave a summary of the project since a few of the Commissioners were not present
the last time the item was heard.
Mr. Matt Bond,
City Stormwater Engineer, recapped the stormwater issues for the commissioners who were not
present during the last meeting.
Commissioner
Harris inquired about screening along
Mr. Belot stated that the garages will face
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Ron Schneider,
attorney representing several neighbors, went over the 10 items of concern that
were included in his letter to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner
Moore asked if the conditions were met would the protest petition be withdrawn.
Mr. Schneider
said that there were other people on the protest petition that were not his
clients so he was not sure.
Commissioner
Lawson asked Mr. Schneider about the moving of the quarry house.
Mr. Schneider
said that it is an historic building and caution needs to be taken in order to
preserve it.
Commissioner
Eichhorn asked if the stone house was not moved would that leave enough room
for a lot.
Mr. Belot replied no.
Commissioner
Harris said that some of the requested changes are things that are already in
the Code and she questioned why it was important to restate them as conditions
since they are already in the Code.
Mr. Schneider
said that the zoning and the plan are contingent of each other. He wanted to be
cautious with future use of the property and felt that it was the prudent thing
to do. He wanted it to state that the homes should be on separate lots.
Mr. Bill Kalinich, neighbor to the south,
did a lot of work to circulate the petition. He said that it was easy to get
people to sign the petition and that there are conditions under which they
would withdraw the petition but he felt it was unlikely they would get those
conditions. Most of the objection was that they feel the project was too crowded
and that it was too many houses for too small of space. He also expressed
concern about traffic congestion in the area.
Commissioner
Eichhorn asked Bill how many lots he would like to see for the project.
Mr. Kalinich said that 20 lots would be better.
Mr. Dean Grob,
expressed his concerns about restrictions being put on the property just
because it was desired. He did not want restrictions put on the houses and felt
that the City Code was sufficient.
Mr. Lee Eldredge,
stated that he bought his home on
Commissioner
Eichhorn stated that there are some situations in the City where there are back
to back neighborhoods and the City would like for them to be connected.
Mr. Steve Hileman, was concerned about the
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Belot, addressed concerns expressed by the public. He
stated that the Homeowner Association documents are recorded with the final
plat and there are certain conditions that have to be meet
before being filed. He said that the Homeowner Association will deal with a
majority of the common maintenance. He said that the stone weigh station can be
moved delicately and an engineer will be hired to do an analysis prior to it
being moved. Regarding the covenants, less than half of the project falls
within the covenants area. He did not feel it was necessary to put more
conditions on the plan than are already in the Code. He said the project
complies with Horizon 2020, contains 25% lower density than allowed, does not
require extension of streets or utilities,
Commissioner
Finkeldei inquired about public concerns regarding a turnaround on
Mr. Belot said there needed to be further discussion with Fire
Department and Public Works. He also stated that there are only five or six
curb cuts on
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner
Harris asked if the Commission recommended adding conditions requested by the
homeowners, would there be any objections.
Mr. Patterson
felt that condition 7 had some merit. He said that Rockledge Addition was only
a portion of the project so putting conditions on the entire project might not
be appropriate for the other houses outside of the covenant area.
Commissioner
Lawson inquired about parking for park.
Mr. Patterson
stated that Parks and Recreation have no current plans to add parking spaces to
park.
Commissioner
Eichhorn was not opposed to adding condition 7 from Mr. Schneider’s letter.
Commissioner
Harris felt that condition 7 was appropriate and she would recommend adding it.
She felt that condition 4 would also not hurt and that the neighbors might be
more comfortable with adding it.
Commissioner
Eichhorn suggested that the developer, staff, and neighbors work through any
screening issues.
Mr. Belot asked
that the landscaping be consistent with a Type 1 bufferyard
between
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned
by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the following waivers and variances for University
Park Preliminary Development Plan:
A. Waiver from the minimum lot size for RS7 lots from
7,000 square feet to a range of 4,441 to 8,183 square feet with the average lot
size of 5,729 square feet.
B. Waiver from the required front yard setback from 25’
to 15’.
C.. Waiver from standard requiring sidewalks on both
sides of streets, allowing project not
to have a sidewalk on the south side of
D.
Waiver from the
required 60’ peripheral boundary between a Planned Development and abutting
properties:
i.
Setbacks vary
(from proposed 10’, 15’ and 20’ along the periphery where adjacent properties
have rear yard setbacks of 30’.
ii.
Minimum PDP lot sizes along periphery
boundaries vary from 5,044 square feet to 8,183 square feet. Abutting
properties range in size from 7,950 to 12,617 square feet.
E.
Variance from Section 20-810(10)(v) to allow for a dead-end private alley located on
F.
Variance from
Section 20-810(d)(4)(i) to
allow for 50’ wide right-of-way for local roads with additional adjoining 5’
and 10’ Utility easements.
Commissioner
Harris stated that she would abstain from voting because she was not clear on
process of having the item go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Motion
carried 8-0-2, with Commissioners Harris and
Motioned
by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to approve the University Park Preliminary Development Plan
based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and
forwarding the PDP to the City Commission for approval, subject to the
following conditions (This recommendation includes the Planning Commission’s
approval of the preliminary plat and the City Commission’s acceptance of the
dedication of rights-of-way and easements).
1.
The approved uses for the University Park PD shall only be detached
single-family dwellings, common open space, and additional land dedicated to
the City’s
2.
As required by subdivision regulations, street and sidewalk connections
from
3.
An Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Future Benefit District
for geometric and infrastructure improvements to Iowa Street (street widening,
sidewalks, and turning lanes) shall be executed by the applicant and provided
to the Planning Office prior to recording of the Final Development Plan.
4.
Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan with the following
changes:
a.
Provide valley gutter and concrete apron on the west side of
b.
Per Section 20-1304(iii)(u) provide at least
one north-south and one east-west elevation across the site to show typical
site layout and grade.
c.
Per Sections 20-812(a)(3)(i)
and 20-1304(d)(3)(g), provide grades of the proposed streets.
d.
Provide a hammer-head or turn-around to be shown on the PDP at the east
end of
e.
Provide for the permanent closure of existing driveways on
f.
Provide for the required water distribution main along
g.
Deletion of the waiver regarding reduction of Common Open Space, as the
waiver is not needed.
h.
Improvements to the park area as reflected on the Preliminary
Development Plan will be completed by the
i.
Modify General Note No. 5 to read: “Construction of public improvements
shown shall be provided through the formation of a benefit district or financed
by the developer.” (Note - Water line installations for a subdivision are
typically done by the developer and not through a benefit district.)
j.
Provision for additional screening meeting a Type 1 bufferyard
between
k.
Addition of the following general note to the PDP, “Each Single-Family
Dwelling shall be no more than 2 stories in height. A lower drive-out level is
also allowed in the back of the dwelling for a garage.”
5. Submittal and approval of public improvement plans to Public Works
Department and Utilities Department prior to the submittal of the Final
Development Plan.
Motion carried, 8-0-2 with
Commissioner Harris and