Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes9 ` Chairperson Sawtelle asked if the: .Commission. could request pavers as suggested by Mr~ Esmond in the PRC report. Senior Planner Kee answered es; however the avers are not y p 1 cost-effective for the applicant because they are as expensive, ~ as applying an asphalt surface. Mr. Dresser asked how the Commission could be assured that ally requirements would be met at the end of one year; adding that; if the temporary parking. lot. plan was approved, the applicant could .return at the end of the year and request :another permit' for a temporary parking lot if the proposed of was not; completed. ; Senior Planner Kee informed the Commi sign that the requirements presented could be enforced through letters t©~ the applicant, City Council, and municipal court fines. The only alternatives that .the applicant has after one year is t'o! pave the temporary parking,.,, lot or completely remove and resod the site. ,, Chairperson Sawtelle stated that the ost oak trees located on' p I ~ • the lot were in jeopardy due to the illegal parking occurring_ on the lot and ointed out the difficult of re lacin ~ the'; p y p g ~ trees if the lot does-not become permanent. I~~ Senior Planner' Kee toted that the Desi n Review B'oar~~d • g ~ ~~ required the a plicant to lace 'a ba c d d 's p p rri a e aroun the t~;ree~ ` in the north corner until development of the final hose ; ~ and; P • ~ ~;~ the 10 barricade shown on the site plan is not adequate. Sh!,e said the entire section should be barricaded by a dist'~anc~e determined by the landscape table L-1 of the Zoning ordinance«i Mr Hall asked if the Commission could require an assurance bond to guarantee the prej ect's completion within he oneyear, time period. He also expre sed concern for the need_ of'~ additional handicap parking. Senior Planner Kee said hat she .'was not sure if the Commission could require an assurance bond; however the ldevelopment agreement could include the Game specifications. Existing handicap parking should be adequate, but`wi11 confer' ;with the bu lding department far requirements. Chairper on Sawtelle opened the ublic hearin . P g Don Garrett of 444 Carters creek Parkwa informed the y Commi sion th at the applicant is w~ll~ng to submit abond covering: the landscap~.ng The. bank thatowns the land needs'. approval from the Commission befor-e the will consider a lease y or sales agreement.` Since the entire area of the trees in the north corner will be barricaded, the a leant re gists that pp ~ curbing along Highway ~0 not extend ,the len th o th ~ f e property In order to protect the roat~ of the host oak trees. Mr ~. 1 _ ~'M Garrett stated that the applicant intends to create a ermanent parking lot and may. be able to ihstall phases 1 and P 2 initially depending on financial obligations. He .requested conditional approval of the parking lot plan subject ~to the recommendations outlined by .staff. Design Review Board member David Brochu approached the Commission to answer any questions or concerns. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Brochu if the buffer along Harvey .Road was too extreme or elaborate. He also asked if the cluster of trees in the North corner could be preserved permanently. by relocating the parking lot closer to the., creek. Mr. Brochu stated that the Board would like. to see 'more ' creative screens however, the Board's main concern is the g. establishment of precedence for other projects in the Wol f Pen Creek Corridor. Thee. Board~aunanimously agreed that if~, the m orar arkin lot re est was for a new ro' e'ct it would to p Y P g ~ P 7 it should be denied; but the Board. agreed that in this case, . the com ramise to solve an existing problem. He stated' ~~~ tha ~~ ! p tr , , lot would be permanent in nature because screening and light fixtures would be initially installed. Pavers are not cost= effective and. would be ermanent therefore in conflict~'~,with p ,~ i the tem orar nature of the ot, Mr. Brochu lnfarme~!,the P y Commission that he felt the app icant was making an hones attem t to comply with City requirements and solve an exiting P traffic safet hazard. y Mr Garrett staged that much of the parl~ing lot would be in the reservation line if it 'was relocated closer to the creek. He said that a roximatel 3 4 of the ro ert 7 10 ac Pp ~ y / ~ P y ~ - ~ res ~ would have to be dedicated. He su ested that: because gg ~ ~ the trees. along the creek would be preserved through. dedication, the c us e e n the north corner could be destro ed. l troftresl y ~~ Mr Hall moved to den the re est for `a tem orar a ' ~ lot skin '~ y ~ p yP g at 504 Harvey Road. The motion died dine to lack of a second.', ~ ~ Mr. Dresser stated hat he approves of a temporary parking lot :plan because the first phase will bring the applicant in -. .- com Hance with.. the Zonln rd tan submitted is p g o inanee. The p ~. far above the standards for a tem orar Arkin lot. He~sad p Y p g that the.. applicant is makin an honest attem t to brie' the g g P _ praperty and business up to current standards. M~. Dre'sser .::.stated that he: did not like he change of use from '~a .restaurant to a night club which had taken place. He also pointed out the proposed plan s~~ incorrect because i~. does not show the required barricades. Mr, Dresser added that if this prcpasal. is approved, he would 1ik~ the applicant to appear befare the Cc~~nmssion at the end of -one year to see if all requirements acre been met, ~. ~, Mr Brochu explained to the Cc~mm~.ssan- that the Design Review Board requested amore permanent parking lot plan instead of the temporary~'plan initially submitted, adding that the Board was reluctant to approve a en~porary 'parking :lot. without knowing how the permanent lot would be developed. Thee,. Board wanted to know how the permanent Iot would impact the. land and the assurance that a permanent..parking lot would be installed. Mr. Garrett informed the 'Board that if the bank was willing to dedicate the land, the applicant wi l be determined to finish the project . Chairperson Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Esmond moved tt~ approve the temporary parking lot plan at 5~4 Harvey Road.: Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Hall expressed concern of~~creating another_"Mud Lot". In one year, the Commission will be in the same situation if the `applicant does not own the land.. By approving a temporary ..parking of in the Wolf Pen Corridor, a future precedence is .:being set,: The gravel will permanently damage the post oak trees. Mr. Hall suggested tabling the item until the applicant could gain mare information from the bank concerning '-land dedication and owner hip of the lot. Mr. Dresser stated that the design of the lot would be acceptab e far a permanent lot. The size, islands, curbs, screening, etc are all above City. standards. The motion failed .by an even split voce ~3-3~. Members Colson, Sawtelle, and .Hall voted. against the motion and members Dresser, :Michel, :.and Esmond voted for the motion. AGENDA ITEM NG 7: A public hearing fore- consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a aright club, Daquires~ Inc, looted at ''329 Uni~rersity zoned C-N~ in tlae ~Torthgate a-rea. ~90-715~ Assistant Planner Kuenzel presented the staff re ort p . recommending approval. As of May x.990, night clubs are listed as Conditional Uses in all commercial districts. When a new establishment is found to rely primarily on the sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink for its business, the j proprietor of that e tablshment must seek and obtain a ~~, ~ Conditional. Use `Permit. The PAC reviewed this ro'ect an p 7 December 5® 1990, Of the three_ vote members the ~ngineer~.ng and Plann~.nq represer~tat~.ves had ~c~ obi ectlon to the ~ proc~s~l. The Pzanning anc ~~nnq Co~.issioner voted against the establishment because ~e fe~.t enough of this t e yp of busies already exists in this area Twent seven y property owners were notified with. c~ res ones a p ~,