Francis Campbell City
Council Room
Plaza Level,
|
Members
Present |
Members
Absent |
Staff
Present |
Others
Present |
|
Bayles |
Hill |
Beach |
Romig,
Legal |
|
Carnes |
|
Dunlap |
|
|
Dick |
|
Fernandez |
|
|
Harmon |
|
Huntsinger |
|
|
Horner |
|
Stump |
|
|
Ledford |
|
|
|
|
Midget |
|
|
|
|
Pace |
|
|
|
|
Westervelt |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of
said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on
After declaring a quorum
present, Chair Harmon called the meeting to order at
REPORTS:
Director’s Report:
Mr.
Stump stated that there are no items on the City Council agenda and no one will
be attending the meeting.
Chairman’s Report:
Mr.
Harmon stated that the minor amendment for PUD-441-2 has been withdrawn from
today’s agenda.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
SUBDIVISIONS:
FINAL
PLAT:
|
Heartland Venture II – (PUD-578-A)
(2683) |
(PD-26)
(CD-8) | |
|
Location: |
Northwest of
| |
Staff
Recommendation:
A
major amendment to the PUD was approved late in 2000, which triggered a
requirement to plat. Because this
plat only covers a portion of the unplatted property in the PUD, a minor
amendment was processed to establish development standards for this
tract.
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 1.1 acres. It will be developed with 7000 square feet of commercial uses under the PUD.
All releases are in and the plat is in order. Staff recommends approval of the final plat.
The applicant indicated his agreement with
staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Dick, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill, Jackson "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Heartland Venture II as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
|
Cab Addition –
(2383) |
(PD-26)
(CD-8) | |
|
Location: |
West of the northwest corner of
101st and Memorial | |
Staff
Recommendation:
The Board of Adjustment approved a special exception to allow a car wash on this property in April 2001. However, this approval did not trigger a requirement to plat. The tract is zoned CS (Commercial Shopping) and will be developed per the BOA approval.
This plat consists of one lot
in one block on 1.25 acres in a rapidly developing area near
All releases are in and the plat is in order. Staff recommends approval of the final plat.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr.
Westervelt asked if there is a provision made regarding the mutual access
easement. In response, Mr. Stump
stated that the mutual access easements have been dedicated; however, they are
not a part of this plat. Mr. Stump
explained that the mutual access easements are located on the interior lot where
the Wal-Mart or other major retailer would be located and have been dedicated by
separate instrument.
The applicant indicated his agreement with
staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Dick, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill, Jackson "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Cab Addition as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
CHANGE OF ACCESS ON RECORDED
PLAT:
|
|
| |
|
Location: |
| |
Staff
Recommendation:
This application is made to satisfy a condition of a plat waiver granted earlier this year. The property was rezoned to OL and the existing house is being converted to a small office. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the request. Staff recommends approval of the change of access.
The applicant indicated his agreement with
staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Dick,
Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none
”abstaining"; Hill, Jackson "absent") to APPROVE the change of access on
recorded plat for Lot 4, Block 1, Dartmoor Addition as recommended by
staff.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked that more information be
supplied with PUD-441-2 when it returns to the Planning Commission. In response, Mr. Stump stated that at
this time the application has been withdrawn. Mr. Westervelt stated that if or when
this application returns to the Planning Commission, he would like more
background information be available.
In response, Mr. Stump answered affirmatively.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
OTHER
BUSINESS:
|
APPLICATION
NO.:
PUD-390-A |
DETAIL
SITE PLAN | |
|
Applicant:
Ted Sack |
(PD-18)
(CD-7) | |
|
Location: |
Northeast
corner of | |
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant is requesting approval of a detail landscape plan for a new 2,783 square foot bank. The proposed use is in conformance with the approved Planned Unit Development for the site.
The plans submitted are revisions of those reviewed by TMAPC at the March 20, 2002, meeting. The development standards set a minimum screening requirement of three feet to be achieved through berming and landscaping and/or a three-foot high solid masonry wall on the west boundary of the PUD in order to block headlights (from view of adjacent residential uses to the west).
The cross sections provided give insufficient information regarding the height and slope of the berm and height of the plant materials to be used. Staff recommends that a cross-section be provided for that portion of the berming/landscaped area along the west boundary south of the entrance from South 89th East Avenue, and two cross-sections north of the entrance from South 89th East Avenue – one of the landscaped area located between the north fence and the parking, and one of the landscaped area between South 89th East Avenue and the parking. In addition, an outline of the toe of the berm must be included on the landscape plan.
Staff cannot recommend approval of the detail landscape plan as submitted, although the applicant may be providing revised plans per the above comments to TMAPC at the meeting.
Note: Detail site plan approval does not
constitute sign plan approval.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Stump stated that the
screening that was to be provided along the west boundary (89th
Mr. Westervelt asked if there would be a brick wall with the landscaping located on the west side. In response, Mr. Stump stated that the wall would be on the north boundary, the landscaping material would be along the western boundary and would be maintained at three feet.
Mr. Westervelt stated that he understood that the applicant had the option of a berm or a small screening wall. In response, Mr. Stump stated that the applicant is proposing landscaping hedge only.
Mr.
Westervelt stated that he recalls that the berm and wall were the only things
interchangeable, because the landscaping would not adequately hide the
headlights alone. The Planning
Commission discussed the berm and the difficulty in maintaining it and in the
alternative suggested a three-foot wall that would match the bank building
because of the narrow area. He said
it never occurred to him that the applicant would substitute the landscaping for
both of the berm and wall. In
response, Mr. Dunlap stated that he remembered the same as Mr. Westervelt, that it had to be some type of combination, but
not landscaping alone. Mr. Stump
stated that the applicant is proposing a short berm on the north of the entrance
and staff thought it would be too steep and too short to do any good. Mr. Stump further stated that the
proposed berm would probably increase the runoff from the plants and be more
likely to fail. Mr. Stump explained
that staff suggested that the applicant delete the berm because it wouldn’t do
any good at the height proposed.
Mr. Harmon stated that he did not understand it to be just landscaping, but that berming and landscaping or a three-foot wall with landscaping would be acceptable.
Ms. Pace stated that there is one home across the street from the subject area being discussed, and the headlights would be shining into their window.
Applicant’s Comments:
Ted Sack, 111 South Elgin, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120, stated that he received an email from the TMAPC recording secretary of a transcription of the minutes and his interpretation was that there was an option of landscaping, berm or wall, one or combination thereof, to provide screening. He commented that he felt that the landscaping in the subject area would be sufficient. If the requirement were to be a wall from the north to the entrance, then he would agree with that if he could leave the landscaping from the entrance to the south.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Sack if
he was talking about the entrance on 89th
Mr. Westervelt stated that the
original PUD did not prohibit the masonry wall from the driveway out to
Mr.
Sack stated that there is not enough room for a wall and landscaping. In response, Mr. Westervelt asked Mr.
Sack why he couldn’t put a wall and landscaping in since the bricks are not that
wide. Mr. Sack stated that he could
do that if the Planning Commission wanted both, but he thought it was a matter
of speed.
Mr.
Westervelt stated that the Planning Commission simply wanted to control the
headlights that would be shining into the neighborhood. Mr. Sack stated that he could install a
wall on part and berm and landscape the other.
Mr.
Harmon asked Mr. Sack if he was proposing a three-foot berm south of the
entrance and a three-foot wall north of the entrance. In response, Mr. Sack answered
affirmatively.
Mr. Sack asked if the berm would
have to be three feet high or a combination of the berm and landscaping. In response, Mr. Harmon stated that he
understood that the berm should be three feet high, but it could taper off at
the
Mr.
Stump read the minutes of
Ms. Pace stated that the
neighbors should not have to look at a berm without landscaping. She suggested that the three-foot wall
with landscaping should be installed to
Mr.
Sack stated that if the landscaping by itself is not sufficient, then he would
propose to install the three-foot wall north of the entrance, and from the
entrance to the south, install a berm and landscaping where there is room. Mr. Sack commented that the one
residential home does not have any windows that face the bank
facility.
Mr.
Harmon stated that personally he would like to see the three-foot masonry fence
all along the west frontage. He
asked Mr. Sack if the three-foot wall is more expensive than berming and
landscaping. In response, Mr. Sack
stated that it is not more expensive, but his client prefers the
landscaping.
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Sack how tall he thought a berm should be in the subject area he is proposing. In response, Mr. Sack stated that he thought it should have three-to-one slopes. Mr. Sack explained that he proposes to move the berm back so it would be centered and he believes he should be able to get it to three feet plus the landscaping.
Mr. Horner stated that a berm and the laurels are more pleasing to him because it takes away the commercial look of the masonry wall.
Mr. Westervelt asked staff if the Planning Commission could make the motion clear enough that staff could make sure that the details submitted are sufficient, or if Mr. Sack should return to the Planning Commission for approval. In response, Mr. Stump stated that if the Planning Commission could reasonably give Mr. Sack good direction and direct staff to make sure that it is complied with, then staff could approve this at the staff level.
Mr. Harmon asked if there would be a mutual access between Area A and Area B. In response, Mr. Sack stated that there are no plans for the eastern tract (Area B), but there is a mutual access easement between the two areas.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of WESTERVELT, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Dick, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill, Jackson "absent") to APPROVE the detail site plan for PUD-390-A, subject to the following conditions: 1.) area to the north of the access point (South 89th East Avenue) directly across from 69th Place South be a combination of the three-foot masonry wall and landscaping materials; 2.) south of the same access point toward 61st Street South shall be a combination of irrigated berm and planting materials sufficient to screen headlights in staff’s professional opinion, and direct staff to review the detail site plan without returning to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Stump informed the Planning Commission and Mr. Sack that staff would be looking for a 30- to 36-inch berm with the laurel placed in various locations around the berm.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
|
APPLICATION
NO.:
PUD-641 |
MUTUAL
ACCESS EASEMENT | |
|
Applicant:
Roy D. Johnsen |
(PD-18-B)
(CD-7) | |
|
Location: |
North
of | |
Staff
Recommendation:
Mr. Stump stated that this is the restrictive covenant for a mutual access easement for Montereau in Warren Woods. From the original plat there were two lots (one fronting 71st and one at the rear where the primary development would occur), then it was revised and the lot fronting 71st was dropped. The Planning Commission required two access points to the tract on the north and the mutual access cannot be changed without the Planning Commission’s approval.
Staff finds this to be a sufficient document to assure the second point of access is adequate and recommends APPROVAL.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of CARNES, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Dick, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill, Jackson "absent") to APPROVE the mutual access easement for PUD-641 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
There being no further business, the Chairman declared the
meeting adjourned at
|
|
Date Approved: ______________________ |
|
|
___________________________________ |
|
|
Chairman |
|
|
|
|
ATTEST:_____________________________ |
|
|
Secretary |
|