2000-13 AMENDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

Home Browse Search

City staff indicated the preliminary plat, and possibly the final plat, would be reviewed and an item scheduled for Council consideration at their March 27th meeting. Jim Shafter, who resides near the proposed planned unit development, has met with Mr. Romano and Mr. Cochran and thanked them for amending the proposed development. After discussion, Councilwoman Stockard moved that the ordinance be tabled; seconded by Councilwoman Brinkoetter, and on call of the roll, Councilmen Brinkoetter, Burton, Carrigan, Laegeler, Sands, Stockard, and Mayor Howley voted aye. The Mayor declazed the motion carried. Ordinance No. 2000-13, amending Country Club Centre Planned Unit Development located at Country Club Road and Norwood Drive on petition of Robert Penwell,was presented. Councilwoman Brinkoetter moved the ordinance do pass; seconded by Councilman Carrigan. City staff responded to Council's questions regarding why the ordinance approved in 1994 was not enforced stating the 1994 ordinance did not require a site improvement bond or a provision to delay occupancy permits; provisions of proposed ordinance will be enforced and staff has included the site improvement bond requirement as a performance measure; deed restrictions and any change in the development will require an amendment approved by Council; the need to consider imposing time limits in order to monitor / control multiple phases of developments; delay in action this evening on proposed amendment will a11ow the developer to implement the 1994 ordinance emphasizing the proposed amendment reduces density and places more restrictions on the developer; prior to occupancy the developer (or owner if developer . should sell the premises) is required to meet the stipulations outlined in this ordinance; action will be filed in circuit court if the developer fails to follow planned unit development provisions; and planned unit development construction must begin within two years. Attorney Ed Flynn appeared representing area residents. Mr. Flynn outlined several concerns including the current detention area was not built to specifications nor is the proposed area and the detention area should be inspected by city staff before any permits are issued; exterior lighting and close proximity to residential area (redirect lighting away from residences); elevation and whether the design of the new structure would include a vaulted roof; no minimum berm height requirements; and a request that refuse containers be enclosed and relocated to the South side of parking lot. Phil Cochran, Cochran Engineering, and Robert Penwell, petitioner, addressed City Council. Mr. Cochran stated at the Plan Commission meeting city staff recommended three conditions later adding a fourth (deed restriction on Lot 2), which the developer has agreed adding the developer has gone to great lengths to accommodate both city staff and objectors. Additionally, the 1994 planned unit development did not have time limitations. Mr. Cochran responded to some of the concerns raised by Mr. Flynn stating the ordinance addresses the