PL PACKET 01182005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 21, 2004 Page 10 1 Mr. Malkerson stated that they do not want to be saddled with an asphalt parking lot noting that 2 legally they cannot be allowed into the PUD. He expressed concerns stating that this would 3 adversely affect them if they are allowed. He asked the Commission to have Quest stand on their 4 own noting that the City must prepare an environmental worksheet before approving the PUD 5 request. He stated that the EAW done on their PUD did not involve any part of this proposed 6 project noting that this applicant did not want to be a part of the original PUD redevelopment. 7 He stated that the environmental review process did not address any issues related to the 8 proposed project and the traffic impact is not the test to determine if the EAW requirements have 9 been addressed. He stated that an EAW has to be done on this project noting that this would be 10 mandatory because it is a spin-off and does affect the environment in the same way as they do. 11 12 Mr. Malkerson suggested that the Planning Commission work with the City Council to determine 13 if an EAW is in order before making any further decisions. He stated that there are no reasons to 14 continue to proceed without a traffic analysis. He requested that Quest's proposal be denied, as it 15 is adverse to the current plans for the area. He noted that it was their understanding that 16 throughout the redevelopment process that any development in this area would be governed by 17 the Northwest Quadrant Committee and reviewed the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment 18 Committee planning process requirements with the Commission. 19 20 He expressed concerns stating that it is premature to begin promoting a new housing proposal 21 when they have yet to have an opportunity to complete their marketing. He stated that the area 22 could become blighted and this proposal could put the remainder of their project at risk. He 23 stated that there was a residential plan in place for this area noting that the plan did not include 24 residential development on that property. He noted that Mr. Pratt has relied on the City's plan 25 for redevelopment. He referenced the proposed landscaping and trail access stating that Quest 26 should be required to present the same level of detail and should go through the full review 27 process before any further approval of their request. He asked that the Planning Commission 28 require the same level of detail and compliance that was required for Pratt/Ordway. He requested 29 that this matter and discussion be tabled until further clarified. 30 31 Gary Vogel, BKV Group, stated that they did the master planning for this project and provided 32 the Planning Commission with the approved drawings for their review. He reviewed the 33 drawings with the Commission noting that the area set aside to the south of the existing Apache 34 Medical Building would be true side by side townhomes. He explained that they purposely set 35 the townhome area away from the condominiums in order to take advantage of the open space 36 between the Apache Medical, Firestone and the Car Wash. He stated that bringing in a four-story 37 building would definitely hamper their development and expressed their agreement that more 38 traffic studies should be done to determine if the weekend traffic would definitely be increased. 39 He reviewed the proposed landscaping for the area noting that their plan is well beyond what 40 currently shows on the concept layout plan. He stated that this could be a PUD amendment in 41 addition to what is currently in place noting that the density is an issue. He reviewed their 42 concerns regarding the height of the building stating that if this is going under site plan approval 43 the zoning would have to be changed to accommodate the height of the building in addition to 44 the density. He agreed that the proposed materials are consistent with the current buildings in the 45 area.