Legislation Details

File #: MIN-91:1625    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Minutes Status: Passed
File created: 11/26/1991 In control: Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
On agenda: Final action: 12/10/1991
Title: METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991

title

METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 26, 1991

body

#1 PUD91-1 Jim Lindsey, Lindsey and Associated Realtors requested final approval of plans for Park Lake Addition, a Residential Planned Unit Development on 13.22 acres. The development will contain 144 living units in 12 buildings along with a resident manager’s living unit and other accommodations. The property is located west of Harrisburg Road, south of the Gladiolus Farm and north of Shadow Ridge Subdivision.

 

Prior to discussion about the project, letters were presented from the attorneys representing Mr. Lindsey stating that if the PUD is approved tonight that the rezoning request that has been submitted to the City Council will be withdrawn.

 

Mr. McCracken pointed out that any condition made concerning future development in this area would not replace or do anything with the previous stipulations that were made when the property was rezoned to C-3 in 1989. For the record the Planning Commission will be looking for Gladiolus Drive to be widened and curbed as future development occurs and that they will be evaluating the possibility of additional fencing along the property lines east of this site as the property is developed.

 

Mr. McCracken made a motion to grant final approval of the PUD based on the Commissioner’s interpretation of the PUD Ordinance and the City Attorney’s opinion that we are in satisfactory range for the Commission to review the loop street question and the density requirements and are empowered to particularly review that and approve a PUD being designed such as this one. It was further stipulated that: 1). The fencing that is to be installed on the south property line is to be substantially complete by 2-15-92 and totally complete by 5-15-92 with substantially complete meaning that all the wood sections of the fence would be in place totally; 2). It was further stated that regarding the loop street situation, that after reviewing the plans, this project could have been done substantially the same way it is proposed and could have met the technical requirements of the loop street concept but by virtue of the fact that the development is being shifted so far northward leaving an 87’ buffer on the south side, that therefore, the Commission is comfortable with that situation; The Commission is also comfortable with the fact that parking within the unit backs into the streets stating again that the PUD Ordinance empowers the Commission to give and take on some sections to make a better project so this is satisfactory; 4). A record plat needs to be prepared that could be recorded. The motion was second by Mr. Little. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.

 

#2 RP91-43 Drs. Schrantz and Luter requested approval of Lot 1 of Schrantz’s replat and the east 50 feet of the south half of Block 25 of Patrick’s Third Addition.

 

Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve the request acknowledging that the right-of-way has been increased from 20’ to 25’ on McDaniel Street and considering the fact that McDaniel is only a four (4) block street the right-of-way is sufficient. Approval is also contingent upon the owner entering into a street improvement agreement for Matthews Avenue. The motion was second by Mr. Little. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.

 

#3 SP91-20 Dr’s Schrantz and Luter requested approval of site plans for medical offices to be built. The building contains 2,464 sq ft. and is located on the northwest corner of Matthews Avenue and McDaniel Street.

 

Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve the request subject to the drainage being worked out with the City Engineer and recommending that the waiver of setbacks be granted by BZA. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.

 

Other business:

 

#4 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is requesting a change in the configuration of the loading dock and drive between the new and existing buildings which involves a small addition to the building.

 

The new proposal is much more desirable, and was originally proposed to Wal-Mart according to the City Engineer as far as moving traffic and less interference with the truck traffic. The north/south drive is now more of a straight shot and the trucks will be not backing across this drive plus the loading docks will not be visible from the street. The new addition will be identical to the existing building.

 

A motion was made by Mr. Patteson and second by Mr. Damron to approve the design change by Wal-Mart. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED.

 

#5 RP91-41 Bob Gibson and John Bracey requested approval of a replat of Lots 3-10, Block D of Hunter’s Ridge Phase I and Lots 27-30 of Hunter’s Ridge Phase II. The property is located south of Hunter’s Ridge Drive and Brentway Circle.

 

This item was tabled at the 11-21-91 meeting citing the incomplete improvements in the 1st phase of Hunters Ridge that needed to be worked out. It was further pointed out that the street in this development (Fox Run Drive) does line up with Gladiolus Drive that could be extended to Culberhouse Street. The Commission was informed that Bob Gibson and Mercantile Bank had worked out an agreement to install the improvements that have not been completed in the 1st phase, including piping, drop inlets and some paving and curbing. The City Council will also have to abandon the right-of-way.

 

Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve subject to the City Council abandoning the right-of-way on Brentway Lane. Mr. Damron seconded the motion. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed.

 

Mr. Vance mentioned to the Commission that an ordinance was being considered to eliminate the PUD from the R-1 zoning district. It was further stated that possibly a moratorium on multifamily development in an R-1 PUD might be the best thing to do, thus not eliminating some of the good PUD projects that have taken place in R-1 and would also allow further study into the matter.