Loading...
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