12/12/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 j ' .. • '-' ? PLANNING CON1r1ISSI0N DECEMBER 12, 1989 PAGE 3 Iq would appear to be a significant discrepancy in the figures, especially the southbound traffic shown on Butternut Ridge and the southbound on Great Northern Boulevard, and pointed out that there is no date listed on the Great Northern Boulevard studyo P2r. Franz, representing Developers Diversified, referred him to page 5 which indicated that the study was taken in September of 1989 for a city wide traffic study at the request of the City. Mr. Bowen pointed out that the study concluded that a light would be needed at drive "B" (shown on the overall plan as the driveway for the office complex) when that drive is installed during a later phase of the development. Mr. Morgan believed that a representative of Traff-Pro should be present to explain the study. Mr. Thomas suggested that the person who accumulated tliis.data should be present at the BZD meeting so that he can answer any questions. In reference to the over- all development plan, Mr. Franz explained that this concept plan is only one passible solution to the proposal under the judgement entry and is a maximum build-out scenario and is also reflected that way in the traff ic study. He further explained that they never intended to use all three access points that had been designated; they merely wanted to point out that three would have been allowed. Mr. Morgan questioned if Council has to-appro.ve.the conceputal plan. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that the court has approved all the various uses on the property and this could go on to them for information only, but the development plans can be submitted in stages. This concept is merely to help the city do the best planning job possible, but with the understanding that Developers Diversified can change the plans, they are not committing themselves to any particular plan. P4r. Morgan pointed out that Great Northern had to go to Council for approval bf a master plan. Mr. Dubelko responded that that was f.or property that was zoned for Mixed Use and this is a different development procedure; these plans do not have to proceed in the same way. Pir. Dubelko advised that this property must be treated as a normal devel- opment except that it is under a court order.which superceeds the Zoning Code. Mr. Morgan suggested that Developers Diversified submit a revised concept plan which reflects the new layout of the apar.tment complex to present to Council. Mr. Gorris stated-that,there does not'appear to be any:thing in either development that would have a negative impact on the other. He concluded that this proposal can be developed as it is laid out and the res.t of the land can be developed in such a fashion as to be within tiie guidelines laid down by the court without presenting any hardships to the developer. Air. Franz agreed to present a revised concept plan which will show the.apartment complex as it has been re- 'vised. In reference to the landscaping, it,was pointed out that the buffer azea to the nor.th (between-the apartments and the office complex) would be a 20 foot buffer planted with pines, crabs, and other.landscape trees, and.Mr. Thomas stated that there would also be an adjacent buffer on the Developers property. Mr. Gorris wanted to make sure that the forester is constantly aware of what is happening on this property. In reference to the 45 foot high towers, it.was determined that a vari- ance would be required, since the 45 foot height restriction was a Zoning Code restriction, and not just a restriction of the court order which could be waived-by mutual agreement bettoeen the city and the devel- opers.. B. Gorris moved to approve the proposed Steeple Walk Apartment Homes Development, located south of I-480, west of S.Re252., and north of lots facing Butternut Ridge Road as presented on the revised plans dated December 6,.1989 incorporating all.of the recommendations ef-the Architec- tural Review Board with the understanding that sidewalks will be installed