HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutest
Mr. Esmond asked if the applicant could install a line with. taps without tearing up the building
if the plat were denied....
Mr. Pullen said that the applicant. could :leave :the lines as he building's sewer service, just not
allow the sewage .from the out parcels to flow through this line.
Mr. Esmond asked if the placement- of lines under the building could have been by accident on
the part of the -developer.
Mr. Pullen said that he was unsure of the applicant's reasons but that it was done intentionally.
General discussion of the reciprocal easement agreement followed.
Mr. Esmond questioned the water situation. Mr. Pullen said that after the Project Review
.Committee meeting,. it was determined that the water problem could be easily resolved.
Mr. Michel asked if the private system had any impact on the public sanitary sewer system.
Mr. Pullen said that, the private system was adequate. to serve the subdivision.
Mr. Pullen said that he does not believe that it should become the practice of this City to take
on the responsibilities of the developers. He pointed out that this would be the case if the
sewer system ever backs up
Mr. Michel asked if there were any C-1 properties in town with private sewer systems.
Mr. Pullen said .that. he did not know, perhaps Post. yak Mall.
Mr. Esmond said that he believes that it is in the City's best interest to correct. the situation
now,.. especially if the developer knowingly created it, .Esmond said that he would request
easements for corrections/extensionss
Mr. Michel said that he agreed .with Mr. Esmond.
Mr. Calson added that problems have occurred in the past. because of some sort of inefficiency
in the City's codes, regulations, policies, etc. He said that he sees this as an opportunity to
protect future owners of the property.
Mr. Colson made a motion to recommend denial of this plat. Mr. Michel seconded the .motion
.which carried:-unanimously. (5-0)
,AGENDA ITEM N4.4: 90-Z08: Final P1~t -Southwood P]aaa Phase Two -Block 18 Lot 4.
ApPlucant i~ Southwood Valley inc.
City Engineer sullen explained. the location of the subject property. as near Walmart, and being
the proposed site for. Albertsons. He said that the City has already received the construction
documents for infrastructure .and access.
Chairman Sawtelle asked about the "self parked" lots which were mentioned in the
presubmission conference report.
Ms. Kee explained that the term ..was used to describe the lots which have the capacity. to
house the required parking spaces on the same lot.
Ms. Kee addressed the issue- of ignage She said Ghat the applicant's alternatives were
outlined in the presubmission conference report. She said that the .applicant no longer wished
to have signage shared with walmart. She concluded that the.. first alternative,.. which noted Lots
4A, 4D, 4E 4F, 4G, and 4H as one building plot with one freestanding sign on FM-2818 or
Longmire, would be pursued by the applicant. Ms. Kee said that Lat 4B could have its own
sign as a separate .building plat.
P&Z minutes 6-21-90
~,
Mr. Michel asked about the traffic circulation concerns which were voiced at the presubmission
conference.
Steve. Hansen came forward to explain the planned .circulation between lots.
General discussion of signage followed:.
Ms. Kee said that she would like the signage solution included as a note on this plat. Ms. Kee
:admitted that all 3 lots along FM 281$ could .have signage unless specified as 1 building plot.
There was :general discussion concerning sign regulations as specified in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Ms. Sawtelle said that she would be opposed to freestanding signs on all 3 lots.
Mr. Colson was .opposed to the idea of .restricting the signage for future owners...
Ms. Kee said that the signage ..issue did... not. have to be resolved at the dime of platting.
However,. she said that she believed it made -mare sense to include the note regarding signage
on the flat to alert potential buyers.
~, Mr. Esmond .said that he does not see a problem with the proposed signage solution since staff
and he developer are in .agreement.
Mr. Esmond made a motion to .recommend approval of this final plat with all lots being
considered one building plot except Lot 4B which :would be considered a separate building plot
for signage purposes.
Ms. Davis seconded the motion.
Mr: Michel said that he was not entirely comfortable with the notion of "first come -first served".
Ms. Sawtelle said hat given the proximity of the lots. to the road, she .felt that "on building"
signage is sufficient. She pointed out that potential buyers have the option of applying to .the
ZBA for a variance.
Mr. Esmond said.. that he believes here is a trend- in other communities toward aesthetic
consideration involving signage,. which he fully supports. He said that he is in .favor of fore-
warning future property owners..
The motion carried in a vote of (4-1}. Colson against..
A~GEND~A ITEM N4.8: i'Jther Business.
Planning Technician Rosier informed the Commission that .Chairman Sawtelle and Vice
Chairman Dresser will not be at the next meeting, July 5, 1990. Since that narrows the
Commission down to 5 members, anyone who knows they will: be unable to attend should let
Sutton know as soon as possible..
Chairman Sawtehe suggested that Sutton contact Michael Gentry, who was absent at this
meeting.
Ms. Davis questioned whether :University Towers had been contacted by Staff. Ms. Kee said
that she had received a letter from the attorney representing .University Towers which would be
included in the next P&Z packet.
Ms. Sawtelle thanked Mr. Callaway for taking care of the "Fraternity Row Sign". However,
Sawtelle was concerned that .the :new landscaping at the ...:Kroger:-Shopping: Center contained
trees :which might interfere with power .lines, ..Kee said that she would check into this matter.
A~GENI~A ITEM Na. ?: Adjourn. `
N P&Z minutes 6-21=90