Planning Commission Minutes 2020 08 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 7 of 12 Jim Candy, Pastor of Ascent Church, 550 S McCaslin Blvd Candy comments back on the question about concurrency. He says they are required to work together with the adjacent owners which we have been regarding infrastructure, platting, but there is no requirement that all three builders need to be ready to build at the same time. Wanted to make sure they were all on the same page on that. Closing Statement by Staff: Zuccaro summarizes what a typical industrial development is and how this proposal compares to the CTC. He reminds the commissioners that staff’s expectation is that all three parcels will work together on a coordinated site design. He also reminds them that the comp plan policy of the rural gateway does not apply to the CTC, which was referenced in the applicant’s presentation. He recaps the commissioner’s staff’s recommendation and believes their recommendation has found a good middle ground for the applicant. Howe asks about the 8 feet of tree lawn and 8 feet of detached sidewalk and asks what if the applicant got to 40 feet. Zuccaro says that if you look at the 55 foot buffer at CTC, the other buffers we have are on top of the tree lawns of the 55 foot buffer and you have a tree lawn. It is n ot combined. Ritchie says that is correct. The sidewalk for the most part of the eastern side of the CTC is 8 feet wide. The tree lawn varies in width anywhere from 2 – 12 ft. For the 16 feet, staff does not view that as part of the buffer as that is required for every development. Closing Statement by Applicant: Rhymer begins by reading the comp plan language for special districts and discusses how the 60 feet setback was established 16 years ago. She states that a lot changes in 16 years. They have done their best to work with the city and give where they can but they feel that a 30 foot parking setback with a 43-46 foot landscaping buffer is sufficient. She then discusses how they could do a regional detention center all on the archdiocese property, but how that scenario is not ideal. There is a large channel on the back that has to go there. The reason for that is because between their parcel and the archdiocese parcel, the city has decided to convey all the offsite flows coming from the open space and the roads to pipe it there in that parcel. These three parcels have the burden to convey 67 acres of offsite flows across this parcel. We have to do that through an open ditch. To pipe that would be very costly and as we know, the city is not willing to share in that cost. From there, that has to get over to Dillon Rd. We have to then open ditch that which had to get 30 ft. from there all the way to Dillon Rd. We cannot avoid the fact that we have to convey someone else’s flows across our property. She concludes by saying that they are locked on our design because of the various variables she mentions above. Megan Turner, United Properties,