HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-22-1984CITY OF PlI.MUTH
PL. NN1NQ C04KSSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 1984
The Regul it Meeting off the Planning Commission was called to
order at 7.-35 P.1*
MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairwoman Vasiliou, Commissioners
Wire Magnus$ ';Pluf a, and Pauba
ATT Commissioners Stu? berg and Step Berwald
Siff PRESERTZ, Community Development Coordi tator
Sara . cG"n
Director ` of Planning and Community
Development Blair Trem re
Assistant City Engineer Sohn Sweeney
City Engineer FredMoore
MOTION by Commissioner Pl f a,_ seconded by Commissioner Wire
to, approve the February ,, 1184 Minutes as submitted.
Vote. 4 Ayes. Chairwoman Vasi.liou abstained. MOTION
carried.
VWLIC
Chairwomannasi? fou Introduced the request submitted ;by Pru- PRUDENTIAL URAN
dente alhSranoe Company of Amer' ic dfor ae+ised Prellm COMPANY OF C
inary Plan/Plat Final Plan/ Plat, and, two Site Plans for NPUD REVISED PRELIM-
propose.' Buildings "U" and ICI located northwest of Campus l Y, PLAN/PLAT.
Drive and NorthwestBlvd/County Road 61$ She requested' a FINAL PLAN/PLAT A
review of the February 8. 1984 staff report.' SITE PLANS, ;(2) FOR
BUILDINGR AND C
Director Tramere summarized the proposal Identifying that I8 4)
the Planning Commission, should take action on the several
portions of this appfoat,on to Include a revised NPUU Pre-
liminary Plan/Plat, the Final' Plan/Plat, and the two Site
Plans. A summary of the history of the Northwest Business
Campus Planned Unit Development was provided, noting the
previous disousstons on the "Campus" effect as it relates to
the proposed site design and layout.
Chairwoman Vasilliou recognized the representatives from the
Prudential Insurance Company of America ,and Niles Lindberg,
BRW,. Inc., consulting architect,, Mr.. Lindberg provided a
detailed review of the proposed platting and si to develop-
ment* He stated that the proposed design layout meets the
spirit and direction provided by the Council regarding the
Campus effect".
49-
Page 30
Planning Co,mml,ss.onli,nutes
February 1984
Commissioner Wire inquired hcho proposed :mount of park-
ing, spaces for Buildings ' ' aauil V compared to the exist-
ing building. Mr. Lindberg explainad that the same
proportionate amount of parking would be provided for
lding 'CT', however, less parking is provided for RuIlding
13' because of the urger amount of warehouse space. Mr.
Lindberg expla loed the d.Ifferent arch eetura treatments
for the proposed buildings.
Commissioner Pl,ufka inquired about' the proof -of -parking for
the two buildings. fir. Lindberg explained they comp y with
the Ordinance requirements. Commls,<Aoner Plufka confirmed
that the slope bet,,,veen the two uA .° .ings zwould meet the
City's design standards.
Commissioner Plfka discussed the "earpus-effect" of the
project with respect to the orientation of the parking
areas expressing concern that, from some of the most
visible ureas of the proposed, building, up to four rows of
parking would be visible. He noted that clot of the
discussion for the or,igi.nal. PUD; Plan centered on this
particular issue., He questioned whether parki'ng should be
exteritor throughout the whole project, and whether the PUD
Plan should be re -analyzed regarding thYs design element,
Mr. Lindberg responded noting the SQ -ft. setback for the
buildings, landscaping elements., and traffic island
delineators.
Commissioner Magnus at he concurred with Commissioner
Pl,ufka in that tha proposed parking layout could negate the
camp.us--_ffcct". He also questioned if the whole PUD con-
oe t was being altered. Mr. Lindberg stated, that relocating
the parking more to the iterior, would be feasible with
other types of building uses, such as txf ices and single
U l,ndusstrial> facilities. However, with the proposed:
lei, ole tenant office -showroom Kaci l i tae the proposed
parking arrangement is more desirable.
Commissioner Wire summarized that he felt the proposed
externa, parking gas mot as wally aesthetic as it could
be. He suggested that additional berming and additional
coniferous plantings be utilized. Commissio,r Pa ba:
concurred.
Carlos Hodge, Prudential Insurance` Company of America, d a-
oussed the proposed rarkino layout expressing concern that
large consolidated parkins areas require people to walk
further distances to the building entrances, He suggested
that if the parking design is changed for the proposed uses,
that such requirements be applied to other developers.
Page,. 33
PLanning CounissionMinutes
February 2Z, 1964
WE 'EVISPIT-SS.
Chairwoman Vasillou Introduoed the request submittedby ROBERT MIDDLEMIST
Robert Mlddlemist 'For reaffirmation of a Site Plan and f R SITE PLAN
Variance approval of an office building to be; located ' in AM VARIANCESk (81070)
Section 36, between Highway 55 and County Road 15. Review
of the February , 1984 staff report was waived.'
MOTION by Commissioner pauba, seconded by Commissioner MIN MOTION
Magnusnus to recommend approval of the Site Plat and Variances
subject to the conditions and requirements reflected it the
draft Resolution,
Chairwomanan 'asil -)u recognized Mr. Tom Benshop, 1001 Highway
55, who stated he objects to the proposed approval action,
and thanked the Comnisslor l for notification of the lit,eting.
He explained that when the o'igtn l Site Plan was approved
10t, he was not notified of the meeting. He; stated that
if he would have been notified, he would have objected.
Mr enshop explained there were three items on which he
bases his objections.- The proposed side yard setback of 10
ft rather than 15 ft., would affect 78 ft.- of his
propertyl- secondly,. Section 10, Subdivision C, No.
ubpara 4, states that no outside stairway shill encroach
into a side yardsetback area:, and the proposal calls for a
ft. setback from the property line; third, he objects to
the proposers setbacks to the east property .line for parking
of 10 ft. from 20 ft. He -,,,t,,ted this would affect 36 ft. of
his. property. Also, he stated; that with the previous
approvals, the trash enclosure should be relocated.
Ir enshop;stated that a: variance was granted for the front
yard setback: to County Road 15, however, the planning staff
memo pints out that there ' are two "frontyards". He
questioned why a comparable variance was not approved for
the setback to Highway 55,
14r. Ben hop stated he thought there was an error in the Site
Plan graphic;, which identifies the setback to Highway 55.
e stated he thought it was closer than 5C ft. Re Inquired
why a side yard setback was ,granted to the east property
line, but not to the west property line for parking, He
referred to Item No. 5 of the staff repoKt which discussed
joint pazking fact sties, not ag that such facilites are
allowed U the parking requirements are satisfied* which Is
n(t the oase here.
page
Planning Commission Ninutes
February 1984
s
VOTE on Sb STI` U E MOTION, Commissioner-Plufka Aye, Com-- V T ' SwIsTnUTE
Liss overs Magnus. Wire. Paubat and Chairwoman Vailiou Nay. N ATION , FAILva
MOTION failed*
by Q 1if lis oner Wire., seconded by Comm' ssioner Magnus NOTION TO ENS}
to ANENG THE MAIN MOTION by noting the following regarding RECOMMENDATION
recommended variances:
a The requested variance for the side yard setback to
the stairway to the property line not be approved.
b The requested variance for a setback to the east
property line from the building not he approved.
c Approval, of a variance for tree distance between the
parking area and; the building on the west side of
the building, in light of the above.
d) Consistent with the previous approval, the trash
enclosure be relocated..
Commissioner Plu ka reiterated his conoern that the proposed
building was ton large for the site and should bere-
designed.
Mr." Ni > idie.st s attorney Leon _Stelinbergl, clarified ..the
Motion with the Commission. Mr. Middlemist stated the
recommendation was amenable t4 him£ and he could have a
revised site plan prepared for staff review prior to the
Council meeting.
Vote. 4 Ayes. Cord sslt over Plufka Nay. MOTION carried. VOTE 'I}O TO
D CARRIED,
Vote on the MAIN MOTION as INCE AMENDED. ayes.. Comms AIN MOTION
stoner Pl,ufka Nay. MOTION catried. ONCE ?AMENDED
CARRIED
The Comm ssi.on recessed from °w40 P.M. to 9**4$ P.M.
Chairwoman l asi.l,iou introduced the request submitted by fir. CSG FREEMAN FOR
Craig Freeman for Site Plan app=roval, for "Willow Grove Shop.- WILLOW GROVE SHOPPING
ping Center", - Phase I , to be located northeast of Nathan CENTER SITE KAi
Lane and. Betty Crocker Drive. Review of the February 10t 83065)
196 staff report was. waived*
Chairwoman Vasiliou recognized Mr.: Craig Freeman, who stated
that he was concerned with the Engineering Department`recom-
mendation for the construction of the ponding on Outlot A#
Willow Grove 2nd Addition. He explained that Outlot A is
not owned by him, but is owned by his father. He stated
that a Department of Natural. Resources (DNR) permit was
obtained In order to dig the pond, but the pond was not for
the shopping center sate*
age 38
Planning Commission Minutes
ebruary 22. 1984
Assistant City Engineer Sweeney explainedthat ,he total
Willow Grove area is aunifiled development under4 an approved
General Development Plan, subject to the .re uirement-> of the
Development on rafor the Willow Grove 2nd Addition. He
stated staff woold verify i the pond construction was part
of ane Development Contra for the Znd Addition. fir. we-
ney explained that the DNF; Permit s eoa`f es certain Imp-
rove rents to be ' made., It is staff's opinion that because
the pond is a part of the Willow Crave plat, it should be
completed at this time
Commissioner Plufka requested the location of the pond be
identified'which was done by Mr. Bob Coffman$ consultant to,
the petitioner. Mr. Coffman stated that the pond woki.1d be
changed when development was to occur within the Flood
Plain,. Mr. Freeman stated that some filling did occur with-
out. the City's knowledge, but that was eu,tipl ted by his
fathers not him.
City Engineer Moore stated that all the improvements are
related to developing the entire piece of property within
the Willow Grove plat. Engineer Moore stated that clot of
work has been completed which is not In compliance with the
approved plans. Compensatory storage is needed, as part of
the overall pian and shoald be provided at this time. r.
Coffman stated the petitioner did not want to be obligated
as part of this project to construot the pond.
Commissioner Plufka Inquired if ' the development met the
requirements of the. Watershed Commission. Engineer Moore
stated it did not, and that the }fond was needed for stor-
age. He explained that ponding requirements are differen-
tiated from Florid Plain constraints and requirements. He
explained further that, this area has been reviewed by the
Bassett Creek Watershed Managument Commission numerous times
because of all the changes over the years. He also stated
that the required pends on the west side of Nathan Lane have
yet to bedeveloped per the approvals.
Commissioner hire stated that he agreed with the r~ngirtee 's
Memorandum and the pond should be constructed.
Mr. Freeman inquired how the City would require the 'pond be
construction on another parcel if the land were owned by
anyone else than him or his father. Director Tremere ex-
plained that staff would research the Development Contract
requirements prior to this being forwarded to the City
Council and that staff has not been presumptive of the
ownership. If anyone else owned the' property;, the issue
would have to be, p-ior to any further development within the
Willow Grove pkat..
The meeting adjourned at 10.-20 P.M