HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
cr'.
promotional or decorative use. of balloons. Mr. Wendler said that is why he thinks a
limit on the.length of time they can be flown would be the easiest way to control
them.
More discussion followed concerning the language . to.. be used in the ordinancE~ and
whether the Commission or the staff .. should dicta te . the exact language; also discussed
was whether to allow balloons and what type in all. zoning districts or just in
residential districts.
Mr. Stewart made amotion to recommend to council that balloons maybe used in all
areas of the City for purposes of decoration and not if or purposes of promotion, and
that if balloons or gas filled objects are not used for decorative purposes the
ordinance should remain the same. Mrs. SawtellesecoIldedthe motion.
Mr . Dresserstated that he would rath~r the ordinance would go back to staff for
exact language and then be brought back before this body before it goes to council.
Mr. Wendler stated he agrees with Mr.:Dresser. After brief discussion, the motion
and. secondwere..withdrawn... . After .morrdiscussionregarding. how to llandletllis
problem, Mr. Wendler made a motion tOitable consideration of the proposed ordinance
to allow staff to have the opportunity to re--draftan ordinance which addresses the
concerns voiced by this Commission. Mr. stewart seconded the motion to table this
item; motion carried unanimously (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: 86-802: An: appeal of a decision of the Project
Review Committee (P.R.C.)to deny.~siteplanapplication for an
addition ofa patiototheCreo~eCafelocatedintheCulpepper Plaza
Shopping Center. Appellantis'Paul Winston for Contract Interiors.
Mr. Callawayexplainedthereasonforithis appeal and read the list of problems
pointed out by the P.R.C .as reasons for denying approval of tile proposed plan. He
then referred to a letter from the apJJ>ellantwhich indicates that all.probl€~ms will
be corrected except for the problem of closing the driveway which provides i.nternal
access .from the front to the rear of this shopping center.
Mr. MacGilvraystated lIe was theP&Z Flepresentative at the P.R.C. for this };troject
review and although he is interested In consistency, his main concern has never been
the closing of the internal accessoni this particular shopping center, as it: is his
belief thatduse .ofthisparticular drivewa.y would promote use of a blind intersection
which might cause accidents, adding/t~at in reality, no one even knows there is
parking available in the rear of this j shopping center. He stated that his Dllajor
concerns had been those voiced by the !I Fire Marsllal, and apparently those concerns
have been. addressed and corrected, anqhe is no longer opposed to this proposal.
Mr . Wendler pointed.out tllat.clos ingthis driveway would <not preclude internal access
from the front .tothe rear.of.this sh~ppingcenter,as there is on-site circulation
at the other end of the center by tlleiSafewaystore. He agreed that closing this
narrow drive might well preclude some:inearor.actual accidents.
Mr . Dresser askedwhY.Qne of <the conditions is to stripe 100 parking spaces in tile
rear of. the. shopping center, and Mr. .r1acGilvray explained that. this restaurant might
impact the entire center, and some pa~kingspaces in the rear might have to be
counted. . Mr. Callaway explained thatiwhen one restaurant replaces another restaurant
it is not considered as impacting the jparking, but rather. that. the additional area
added to this restaurant'wouldhavetqbeconsidered as requiring additional parking.
Mr. Mayo added that the patio area is I considered as anew addition to thiss.hopping
center, but then pointed out that undJr the new. ordinance (#1638) this shopP1ing
P&Z Minutes
8-21,-.86
Page 4
,,/
~~l~
~
1 ,;1,
center is conforming. He explained that the recommendation concerning a1dditional
stripping in the rear only covers some of the parking spaces which always have been
required for this center.
Discussion followed regarding why this addition to the shopping center is almost
completeiftheproposalwasdeniedbytheP.R.C. Mr. Mayo explained that the
contractor. somehow had the understanding · that there were no planningdepalrtment
requirements to be met for the addition of a patio.
The Commission asked if the applicant was in the audience, and if so, would he please
come forward. Paul WillS tOIl , applicantand.contractorcame forward to explain what he
wanted to do {build a patio), stated that he had checked with the Building Department
and had been informed there that he did not need aBuilding Permit for the project,
and did not understand . from hisdiscussion..in that department that he .was required to
submit..anything.tothe Planning Department, and further, knew nothing abollt it until
contacted by the Planning Department.
Mr. MacGilvrayexplainedthattheprob~em seems to be that Mr. Winston has built a
closed-in patio rather than simply a patio on-grade, and some of the problems which
had to be addressed were the direction the doors to the building swing.
Mr. Winston stated that he asa contractor is facing another problem identical to
this one on a project under construction inNorthgate,andthe Building DE~partment
has told him one thing about. the way the doors swing,andin this instancE~the Fire
Department has told him something completely different. He added that he has no
problem how the doors swing,hewouldsimplylike.toknowwhat'sgoingon, and at
this point he doesn't even know what has to be. permitted and what doesn't.
Mr. Dresser said he would like to hear . comments from City Engineer Pull.en regarding
internal circulation within shopping centers"and Mr. Pullen came forward and read
from Section 8.11 of Ordinance 1638. He then referred to theplatapprovE~d earlier
at this meeting which included a note regarding. shared access,. as well as to a
smaller shopping center across Dominik from this project in which theCit~r required
access easements across the front of each> lot to provide for internal accE~ss,adding
thatb.othreferences . exemplify past... policy of. providing.. internal access to prevent
the necessity of getting on major streets. to get from one project toanotller, as is
the case. between Post OI3k. Mall and PostOI3k Square. Mr. KaiSer reminded everyone
thattllere actually is internal access in this shopping center ,albeit located at tile
other end of the project. Mr. Dresser reminded him that a point was made earlier
that perhaps the particular driveway in question might be a hazardous one because of
the blind corner, andM:r;-. Pullen replied there may well be some truth in that
statement.
More general discussion followed with Mr. Brochu making amotion to grant this appeal
and to approve the site plan if all points on the letter from the applicant and
P.R.C.concernswith exception of therefereDce to internal access are met. Mr.
Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7~O).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other business.
Mr. Pullen came. forward and offered a small apology for his remarks at the last
meeting regarding solid waste disposal, then explained that the City has made several
studies'regardingthissubject. Mr. Kaiser stated that perhaps a written report
sl.mnnarizingthe results of those studies might be in order,. and Mr. MacGilvray said
hewoul d llke to"have that report.
P&Z Minutes
8-21-86
Page 5