04/14/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? arrive. Mr. Gavin concluded that this preliminary plan must be followed, there are contracts to build and the developer is ready to proceed. Mr. tideaver still ma.intained that this plan ha.s not been integrated; that.Mr. Koury does have a right to come here, since he is an aggrieved property owner, and as stated in Section 1149.01, these owners ha.ve a fair right to their investment and that right must be protected in the spirit and concept of the Mixed Use ordinance. He believed that ance the Commission has an opportunity to review the entire record they would conclude the detailed development plan should be denied. In response to Mr. Dubelko's. questions, Building Commissioner Conway advised that a preliminary plan was submitted in 1986 and the remainder of the-preliminaiy plan was submitted in 1992. As it stands now the entire parcel "B" has been subjected a preliminary plan. Mr. Dubelko advised that this is not a hearing, it is not intended to be an opportunity for competing businesses or land owners to air their grievances, and to ha,ve the Planni.ng Conunission determine rights, the Commission's function is to plan. He reiterated what he said at the January meeting, that no absolute rights were vested in the land owner by the approval of the preliminary land use plan that was submittecl in January, this approval would always be subject to their demonstrating that any retail use that was proposed on a land would be integrated into the plan for the overall development of the entire parcel. In addition, there were no rights vested to develop it as a restaurant, the proposed use was restaurant/service and service could cover a motel, a bank, a professional offiee building, so the City did not in any way commit themselves to development for this western portion of the parcel for restaurants, all the Planning Commission and the City did at that stage was give prelimina.ry approval for certain, broad, retail uses, since service/restaurant covers most of wha.t could be integrated into an overall development plan. The Commission must ha.ve two particular concerns in approving this detailed development plan: first, it is a retail use that is being proposed and the code clearly states if a retail use is proposed for a parcel it has to be integrated into the plan, and this provision did not exist until the Pierre Radisson Hotel was developed. Prior to that some retail uses were permitted in Mixed Use, but only if they were incorporated into an actual building, for example a restaurant inside an office building; this was .changed to permit more flexibility so that the retail or service use did not have to be in the building itself, it could be on the parcel so long as it.was integrated into the plan. This provision was not included so that a paxcel could be developed entirely as°retail, the language is used that it should be integrated, it should be presiuned that the retail use is to be subordinate to the other uses that are provided for in Mixed Use. The second concern'the Commission should ha.ve, is that when a developer plans to develop a property in phases, he has to iprovide sufficient planning for the remainder. of the parcel so that the Commission can evaluate the entire parcel. The members must ask themselves if these proposed retai:l uses on this part of the parcel have been integrated into the overall plan and if there is enough planning for the remainder of the parcel so that an evaluation of the entire parcel canbe ma.de. Mr. Gorris stated that the plans presented by Biskind Development show foot prints of future developments, and previously more detailed in.formation had been presented,. and he questioned-if enough information had been presented to approve these plans. Mr. Dubelko stated.tha.t if the Comnission allows them to do a phase develogment, a detailed development plan for future pha.ses is not necessary, but enough information must be presented.so that the remainder of the proposal can be evaluated. If the time ever comes when Mixed Use. Zoning is aninappropriate classification for this land the owner can seek- to rezone it, but no one should make Mixed Use somethi.ng that.it is not to avoid rezoni.ng. It is important to treat this as a Mixed Use parcel,:and there should be en:ough information to 9