Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Compilation of Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council minutes beginning in 1975 WESTWOOD VILLAGE PUD The following is a compilation from the Minutes of the Ames Planning and Zoning Commission and the Ames City Council about the Westwood Village PUD. The information begins in 1975 with the approval by the City Council of the Westwood Village PUD. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission before March, 1975 are not available. PRELIMINARY PLAT - WESTWOOD VILLAGE: (Subdivision Files) Mr. Karol Kocimski presented drawings and a scale model of a proposed planned unit development to be located generally in the vicinity of Lincoln Way, McDonald Drive, Hickory Drive and Marshall Avenue. When asked about his plans for the existing apartment house (a converted chicken house) on the property, he said that it would be dismantled after the first stage of the development is completed. Mr. Douglas Provow, whose property is immediately east of the proposed development, requested that a definite time limit be set for removal of the non-conforming structure. Mr. David Stephenson, 322 Hickory Drive, said that he is critical of a zoning ordinan-e .which will allow a 4-plex to be constructed within five feet of his property line in an R-1 zone; however, he said that he has no objection to this particular plan and believes that it will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Kocimski said that the developm.�at would b,: built in stages and would be completed in two years anal that he would not like to enter into a binding agreement for wlv!n th_, bui.ldiny would be dismantled. The City Plan Director suggested that, since this is only a preliminary plat, these problems can be resolved and agreements made prior to approval of the final plat. MOTION by Pounds, seconded by Koerber, to approve the preliminary plat of Westwood village, a planned unit development. (Motion Carried) • WESTWOOD VILLAGE - PUD: A revised PUD plan for Westwood Village north- west of Lincoln Way and Marshall Ave. , on the agenda for referral to Planning and Zoning Commission, was discussed at some length. Council Member Shank noted that some changes had been made in the PUD since originally filed and asked that staff prepare a clearer plan showing these changes. Motion by Shank, seconded by Atherly to refer the request for revisions of Westwood Village PUD to the City Attorney for investi- gation and consultation with planning staff to determine if the construction which has already occurred complies with the PUD plan approved initially. (Motion carried) Motion by Shank, seconded by Atherly that in order to facilitate dealing with this project that the planning staff be instructed to get from the developer complete information on application for revision in a format approved by the planning staff before the request is sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Motion defeated) A motion that any revised plan of Westwood Village include pro- visions for removal of the apartment buildings which were formerly chicken coops before building permits are issued was withdrawn as there was some feeling that the action was premature. Motion by Hammer, seconded by Curtis to direct the Planning & Zoning Commission to include in their report to Council on this particular matter the schedule for removal of the said chicken coop apartments. (Motion carried) • Motion by Curtis, seconded by Huston to refer the revised PUD plan of Westwood Village to Planning & Zoning Commission. (Motion carried) I GG 10. Referral to Planning & Zoning Commission of revised Conceptual Development Plan of Westwood Village Subdivision. • At Z{ I,._. 22 , IG1 WESTWOOD VILLAGE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP)/REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (NORTHWEST CORNER LINCOLN WAY AND MARSHALL AVE.): Th8 Planning and Zoning Commission had considered the proposed CDP and revised PUD of Westwood Village and had recommended approval subject to the following eight stipulations: 1. A barrier be provided on the east side of the development. 2. The garage area along Marshall Ave. be revised so- cars will not be backing out directly onto Marshall Ave. 3. That the "short cut" that now exists from Marshall tb Lincoln Way be blocked off. 4. That the sidewalk leading to Edwards School be put back into the plan. 5. That before any more building permits are issued (excluding the permit for construction of the swimming pool), the older "chicken coop" apartments be demolished. 6. That the east and west boundary barriers be extended to pro- tect the Popelka and Kinderman properties respectively. 1. That staff contact the Traffic Engineer and the Municipal Engineer to determine alternatives for handling of the "short cut" from Marshall Ave. to Lincoln Way, said alternative to be transmitted to Council during their discussion of this matter. Staff recommended that the driveway on Lincoln Way be reconstructed and signed allowing only ingress movements. 8. That the Commission finds the proposal with regard to the "short cut" on the plan dated March 27, 1980, as least desirable and the proposal in that same regard on the plan • dated April 16, 1980, as second least desirable. Stipulation N4, the sidewalk leading to Edwards School, can be considered deleted after Elmer Aurand, Principal of Edwards School, requested that the sidewalk not be constructed. Esther Whetstone, Planning and Zoning Commission, stated that the Commission will be satisfied with the development if all of the above stipulations, minus the sidewalk to Edwards School, are carried out. Motion by Curtis, seconded by Hamner to accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of the CDP dated February, 1980, and the PUD revision dated March, 1980, for Westwood Village with the stipulations recommended by the Commission, minus the construction of a sidewalk to Edwards School, to be incorporated into the PUD. Karol Kocimski, developer of the project, and Ludomira Kocimski, appeared and explained that a $65,000 mortgage was taken out for the "chicken coop" apartments in 1978 which will run until 1998. The mortgage was made to help finance the new construc- tion for the development. Mr. Kocimski voiced his desire to respect the overall density and quality of the site, and re- quested that the date of demolition of the "chicken coop" apartments be concurrent with the issuance of building permits for the final 12 units, or possibly at an earlier date at his discretion. They pointed out that the structure has a letter of compliance from the Housing Inspector for use as a rental unit. At a Council meeting held on March 25, 1975, Mr. Kocimski indicated and committed to the City Council that he would • remove the non-conforming structure (chicken coop apartments) on his property upon completion of "the first phase" of his development. Phase one has been completed. ,e*12Iz4 L- 22- , lqj Go�4T1 t4 vr= f Mr. Kocimski stated that he would not accept the project if the "chicken coop" apartments would have to be demolished before any other building could take place. The City Attorney suggested that he work with the planning staff to prepare a planning docu- ment for a clear statement of exactly what is to be done with the development. Motion by Shank, seconded by Hammer to table action on the matter and to refer to the City Attorney for preparation of a planning docu- ment as soon as possible. (Motion carried) I , IG1 So REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOL - WESTWOOD VILLAGE: Roger Jensen, on behalf of Karol Kocimski, Developer of Westwood Willage, appeared and requested Council approval of an amendment to the 1975 West- wood Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan authorizing the construction of a swimming pool in accordance with the proposed PUD plan revisions. Mr. Kocimski appeared before Council on April 22, 1980 requesting Council 's approval of a comprehensively revised PUD for the development. After review- ing the revised plans and the stipulations recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which included the stipulation that before any building permits are issued (excluding the permit for construction of the swimming Pool), the older "chicken coop" apartments be demolished, Council tabled action on the matter and referred it to the City Attorney for preparation of a planning document. The planning document was prepared and reviewed by the Kocimskis in early May. Certain revisions were agreed upon by staff and the Kocimskis and • the revised document was forwarded to the Kocimskis on May 21. The document has been neither finally accepted nor rejected by Mr. Kocimski and has never been considered by the Council for action. The swimming pool feature of the plan (at least according to the planning document prepared thus far) is not constrained with a condition of first removing the "chicken coops" and the request for construction of the swimming pool could be considered as a single-element amendment to the existing PUD. Motion by Hammer, seconded by Curtis to direct staff to prepare a planning document which would clearly delineate the subject of approval of the construction of the swimming pool including terms and conditions, if any, to be considered at the July 15 Council meeting. (Motion declared carried) JUI. Imo , I-Tex,-> CONSTRICTION OF SWIMMING POOL (WESTWOOD VILLAGE): At the July 1, 1980 meeting of the City Council, Mr. Royer Jensen appeared on behalf of Karol Kocimski, developer of Westwood Village, to request Council's approval of an amend- ment to the 1975 Westwood Village PUD to allow construction of a swimming pool in a different location. The City Council adopted a motion "to direct staff to prepare a planning document which would clearly delineate the subject of approval of the construction of the swimming pool including terms and conditions, if any, to be considered at the July 15, 1980, Council meeting". Staff had prepared a development plan which provides for the terms of the construction of the pool. • Motion by Hammer, seconded by Parks to approve the request to revise the 1975 Westwood Village PUD for construction of a swimming pool. (Motion declared carried unanimously) �j • GG Mayor Goodland asked if there was never any actio n th''e revisions to the 1975 PUD if the pre-1975 apartments could exist forever. Mr. • Rollenhagen responded that that could be possible but that was not the wish of Mr. Kocimski. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the requested proposal of the developer would give the City secur'ty that the apart- ments would be dismantled prior to the construction of the final 12 units which would ensure that the density would never exceed that of the zoning. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on the matter, Chairman Zingg suggested that the developer swap 12 of the proposed units for the pre-1975 apartments. Mr. Kocimski had turned down the suggestion. Council Member Shank questioned if that suggestion was not in fact the same as Alternative 2. Mr. Rollenhagen thought possibly that the suggestion may not have been fully understood but noted that it is Mr. Kocimski's desire to complete the project in total which would not include the pre-1975 apartments.. He also stated that the offer made in January 1981 by Mr. Kocimski's lawyer still stood. That offer would provide for deletion from the original planning document the requirement for immediate demolition of the pre-1975 apartments (145 Marshall) and substitution of a requirement for demolition not later than December 31, 1988, or prior to issuance of a building permit for the final 12 units in the PUD, whichever is earlier. Council Member Hammer concurred with Planning and Zoning Commission Member Sherkow that the request was not a plan, that what is down on this plan is really not what is going to be built and revisions will continue to be requested. Council Member Hammer requested that a complete plan be developed that would be approved so as to eliminate the continual amending process. Then if the developer could not meet the provisions of the approved plan he then be required to develop under the requirements for the regular zoning classification of the property rather than under the PUD process. Council Member Curtis stated that there would be no assurance that the pre-1975 apartments would ever be torn down even if Alternative 2 was • accepted due to the economic situation. The trade off is that if the developer wants to proceed under the PUD the apartments must be demol- ished. Motion by Shank, seconded by Atherly to approve the Development Plan for Westwood Village with Alternative 1 (no building or zoning permits for construction of any buildings in the PUD will be issued until the pre-1975 apartments are demolished with the exception that a permit will be issued for the construction of the swimming pool). Staff indicated that the above is currently the Council's policy and that no action is needed if that remains the intent of Council. (Motion withdrawn) Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive, spoke in favor of the pre-1975 apartments. He stated that he has lived at 240 Hickory for 27 years and has never been sorry that the apartments are there. Mr. Hamilton explained that he felt that Mr. Kocimski had been very cooperative and had agreed to place a screening fence on their joint lot line. The fence was not included in the approved 1975 PUD, however, and Mr. Hamilton encouraged Council to accept the proposal offered by Mr. Kocimski. Council again questioned why Mr. Kocimski had not agreed with the suggestion made at the Planning and Zoning Commission that the pre-1975 apartments be switched for 12 units in the proposed plan. Mr. Rollenhagen responded that it was Mr. Kocimski's desire to complete the project as designed rather than allowing the apart- ments to become a permanent part of the plan. Mr. Rollenhagen did not understand how such an option would meet the desire of the City to have the apartments demolished, but stated that if this would be • a possibility it should be studied more and considered. SOLAR CLUBHOUSE FOR WESTWOOD VILLAGE: Motion by Hanmer, seconded by Parks • to approve the request by Karol Kocimski, developer of Westwood Village, to amend the Planned Unit Development to include a solar clubhouse (covered swimming pool). (Motion declared carried unanimously) 5. Referral to Planning and Zoning Commission request to rescind 1975 Planned Unit Development of Westwood Village. 4. Referral to Planning and Zoning Commission request for amendment to the northwest corner of the 1975 PUD of Westwood Village. IK I AMENDMENT TO WESTWOOD VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): The Planning and Zoning Commission had considered a request of Mr. Kocimski, the developer of the PUD, for revision to the northwest corner of the approved 1975 PUD which would reduce the number of units from nine to eight to include six townhouses and two single-family dwellings. The Commission was not able to come to an agreement on the proposal due to the pre-1975 apartments and no recommendation was being presented to • Council. Staff had prepared a planning document which brings everything to date, including the request for the revision to the northwest corner of the PUD. The document was prepared with two alternatives for the pre-1975 apartments: Alternative 1 requiring that the pre-1975 apartments be demolished before any building or zoning permits for construction of any buildings in the PUD will be issued with the exception that a permit would be issued for the construction of the swimming pool (Council had approved the swimming pool construction in July 1980); and Alternative 2 requiring the demolition of the pre-1975 apartments prior to the issuance of a building permit for the final 12 units. Mr. Kocimski had proposed Alternative 2 and had stated that he would only sign the planning document if Alternative 2 was approved. Keith Rollenhagen, representing Mr. Kocimski, read a letter from Mr. Kocimski which quoted portions of past Council minutes when Mr. Kocimski stated that "...it (the pre-1975 apartments) would be dismantled after the first stage of the development is completed...that the develop- ment would be built in stages and would be completed in two years and that he would not like to enter into a binding agreement for when the building would be dismantled. The letter continued that based on the economy in 1975 and brisk real estate sales the project would have been completed within the time frame projected. However, due to changes in the mortgage market the project has not been completed as planned and the pre-1975 apartments were mortgaged in 1978. Mr. Rollenhagen explained that Mr. Kocimski would like to develop the northwest corner as soon as possible and the proposed amendment to the 1975 approved PUD would allow this. He is in agreement with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission for fencing and screening of the development. Mr. Kocimski viewed the proposal as a compromise that would allow him to move forward in a small manner. As soon as some of the units could be sold for a turn over • of funds so that more could be developed, the pre-1975 apartments could be dismantled. Until that time the apartments are needed to generate revenue. Mr. Rollenhagen believed that the apartments filled a need for adequate and affordable student housing and questioned why some of the neighbors and interested persons wished to have them demolished now. A06usT 0�5 , Council Member Shank again expressed the opinion that the problem that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council have had with this • development over the years is that a PUD is created to allow people to use their property in different ways from the traditional zoning ordinance. Exceptions are made and creative planning is allowed but there are restrictions. Now Mr. Kocimski is requesting the creative planning but not meeting the restrictions. The integrity of the PUD process is being challenged which concerns the Council and the Commission. - Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the developer has made all changes in the original PUD prior to approval in 1975 as requested by Planning and Zoning, including deletion of a daycare center for 21 children and an 8-story structure. The Planning and Zoning minutes prior to the meeting at which the 1975 PUD was approved do not mention the issue of the pre- 1975 apartments. Mr. Rollenhagen felt that the developer had not made a promise to demolish the apartments at a given time when the plan was approved. Under Alternative 2 as now proposed the developer could construct a total of 38 units on the site. The final 12 units could then be con- structed after the demolition of the pre-1975 apartments. At the rate that the developer has been proceeding in the past, Council Member Hammer noted that the apartments might not be demolished for many, many years. With no action taken at all, the developer could construct any- thing in the approved 1975 plan, however, he does not wish to do so. Council Member Hammer suggested that possibly the matter be referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to try and find a compromise so that the developer can proceed and the City's desires can be met. Judie Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Commission Member, explained that the Commission has considered the issue many times and the same impasse surfaces - Mr. Kocimski saying that he never agreed to the demolition of the apartments and the City saying that he had. Commission Member Hoffman questioned whether or not there was actually any documentation on the matter. The Council explained that there was and read from • the Council minutes of March 25, 1975, when Mr. Kocimski stated that "...it (the pre-1975 apartments) would be dismantled after the first stage of the development is completed...that the development would be built in stages and would be completed in two years and that he would not like to enter into a binding agreement for when the building would be dismantled." Council Member Harmer felt that Mr. Kocimski would have to present a compromise plan to Council that would meet the needs of the City and of the Developer and that would allow for the orderly completion of the project in the foreseeable future. Council Members Hamner and Curtis were of the opinion that Alternative 2 would not at all improve the position of the City and would afford the developer all of the advantages for development. Council Member Curtis requested a detailed time table for construction and completion of the plan to increase the credibility of the proposal. Council requested that Mr. Rollenhagen take the discussion back to Mr. Kocimski for consideration. --1U L-ZT­, 2-, 5 4. Motion to refer PUD Plan amendment to Planning and Zoning Commission (K. Kocimski, 302 Hickory Drive). • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Request of Karol J. Kocimski for approval of a revision of a part of the western portion of Westwood Village, a planned unit development, located between Hickory Drive, McDonald Drive, Marshall Avenue, and Lincoln Way. Mr. Brennan presented the staff report and explained what materials had been transmitted to the Commission regarding this request. Mr. Brennan indicated that the staff has reviewed Mr. Kocimski 's request and doesn't feel that it is contrary to the original intent of the PUD plan. He explained the change as being merely a change in location of townhouses and a single-family dwelling, which resulted in the single-family dwelling being moved closer to Hickory Drive and the townhouses being moved away from Hickory Drive. Mrs. Cholvin noted other discrepancies from the original plan on these proposed plans including location of some garages. Mr. Karol J. Kocimski , petitioner, addressed the Commission to answer their questions. Ile noted that the townhouse structure that was to be moved to the south was being changed to include B units rather than 4 units as proposed in the original plan. Also, in another part of the development, he reduced the number of townhouses from 4 to 3. Mr. • Brennan indicated that the staff was not aware of these additional changes and that Mr. Kocimski had not discussed these matters with the staff. Mrs. Cholvin noted that not only had Mr. Kocimski changed the placement and number of units , but also the original concept of the entire develop- ment as far as she was concerned since he now proposes the townhouses to be rental units rather than units for sale. This area was not intended to be an area for apartments since there are already problems such as parking on McDonald Drive from the existing apartments in the area. Mr. Kocimski and Mr. Steve Wailes, manager of the existing apartments , assured the Commission that there was ample parking for the tenants and visitors of the apartment complex so that they would not have to park on McDonald Drive. Mr. Wailes indicated that he had asked each tenant to have his visitors park in the designated areas and lie had no control beyond that. Chairman Nichol indicated that this proposal would have to be brought before the City Council again so that they could refer it back to the Commission with these additional changes. Mr. Nichol indicated the staff would like to consider the total changes for the development not just those section by section. Comments from audience: I Mrs. Ruth T &rwan, 121 McDonald Drive, addressed the Commission and noted that there is a serious problem of parking along McDonald Drive, so much so • that emergency vehicles could riot get through if needed. She stated that the cars do belong to the residents of the apartment complex. Mr. Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive, spoke to the Conanission and pointed out on the map the location of his residence in relation to the Kocimski I development. His concern was that parking for the relocated townhouses was located approximately 8 feet from his lot line. He originally approved • the plan because there was no traffic pattern behind his home, but now he does not favor this proposal and has suggested to Mr. Kocimski that he locate the parking for these townhouses to the east of the units themselves. Mr. Kocimski was not favorable to this suggestion. If this proposed relocation of the townhouses is approved, Mr. Hamilton would like to have sound and sight barriers designed by a competent engineer to be placed between his lot line and the townhouse development. Mr. Doug Provow, 3655 Story Street, distributed to the Commission copies of two petitions bearing signatures of 25 per'sons in the area who oppose the proposed changes. A question regarding the removal of the chicken coop apartments was brought up and it was suggested that perhaps the City Attorney could be contacted for his opinion of what constitutes the separate phases of the development. Mrs. Cholvin indicated her opinion that any time a revision was asked for, it would constitute a completion of Phase I (which was the time designated for removal of the structures). Chairman Nichol suggested to the staff that they get a commitment from Mr. Kocimski as to when the nonconforming apartment structures would be torn down. He also suggested that perhaps further construction should be held up until the structures are removed. Mr. Kocimski invited the Commission members to take a tour of his Westwood • Village area so they could see what is taking place. Mr. Hamilton asked that the Commission put themselves in his place to see how they would feel if this development were permitted to take place .so close to their lot line. A question was raised among the Commission members as to how many total dwelling units would be developed within the PUD and it was noted that a clarification would have to be obtained. MOTION (Riis, Cholvin) To refer this request back to staff for further clai&ification. .- VOTING AYE: Bledsoe, Whetstone, Nichol , Riis, Cholvin, Kahler. VOTING NAY: None (Lex absent) Motion carried 6 to 0. • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Request from Karol J. Kocimski for approval of a revision of the approved PUD plan of Westwood Village located between Hickory Drive, McDonald Drive, Marshall Avenue, and Lincoln Way. Mr. Brennan addressed the Commission regarding this request and reviewed the staff recommendation. fie also indicated that Mr. Kocimski had brought in an additional revision on Monday, July 3, which Mr. Brennan had handed to the Commission members upon their arrival . The removal of the chicken coop apartments as provided for in this most recent revision deviated from the plan for removal as stated in the staff report. The staff report stated that Mr. Kocimski would remove the chicken coop apartments upon beginning of construction of the townhouses located directly south of the older apartments. This new revision states he will remove the chicken coop apartments upon beginning of construction of the townhouses located directly north of -Che apartments. Mr. Brennan noted that the staff felt the changes were acceptable; however, there was probably some concern by the Commission on the timing of Mr. Kocimski 's revisions. Mr. Nichol noted his concern of this highly irregular method of proposing changes and the fact that the persons interested in this matter had to keep coming back month after month because of it. Ile felt that the Commission could not rightly move forward on the approval of this project at this time. Mr. Kocimski spoke to the Commission and brought to their and the audience's attention a signed agreement between he and Mr. Skarshaug dated June 1, 1970, which provided that the Skarshaugs would cooperate with the Kocimskis in securing municipal approval of any plan or change in zoning requested for the Westwood area. Mr. Kocimski also noted that he had obtained Letters of Compliance for the 12 units in the "chicken coop" apartments which did not expire until 1981. Further discussion regarding the timing of removal of the apartments followed and Mrs. Cholvin expressed concern that if all the proposed structures are built before removal of the chicken coops, there will be more than 82 units within the development at one time and that is not allowed. MOTION (Cholvin, Kahler) That the revised PUD as presented not be approved at this time and that any further plans that are brought in allow adequate time for staff review and recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Riis stated that he didn' t feel the plan should be turned down at this time, but perhaps only delayed to permit the Commission more time to review the proposed revisions. Mr. Richard Allfree, 3648 Story Street, addressed the Commission and noted his desire that consideration of this revised PUD be delayed for 90 days to ispermit area residents to enjoy their,summer without having to come back every month for discussion of this matter. 3- F4z- Mrs. McDorman, 3654 Story Street, expressed her concern that permitting the construction of 82 units in this development would generate an additional • 160 cars minimum of traffic on Story Street. She noted that the parking and traffic problem is already so bad that she is concerned what would happen in case of an emergency situation with her children. Mr. Nichol noted that approval for the maximum of 82 units was given in 1975 and that could not be reduced at this point. Mr. Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive, echoed Mr. Allfree's comments and noted that the transparency being shown on the overhead projector misrepresented the location of his house with regard to its proximity to the lot line separating his and Mr. Kocimski 's property. Discussion then focused on the motion on the floor and it was suggested that this not be passed, but rather some other motion be considered that would help move this project ahead. Mrs. Cholvin and Mr. Kahler withdrew their motion and second respectively. MOTION (Cholvin, Lex) That the Commission postpone consideration of this revised PUD plan for 90 days and that before this is brought back, Mr. Kocimski will have met with neighborhood residents and dis- cussed and resolved some of their problems. Also, a notice should be sent to the City Council that the Commission has met on this issue twice and a summary of the meetings and the Commission's intent be given to the Council• i VOTING AYE: Riis, Whetstone, Nichol , Lex, Kahler, and Cholvin j VOTING NAY: None (Bledsoe absent) Motion carried 6 to 0. • o�To{3�1z- f 176 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mr. Nichol noted that Item #7-A on the agenda (Westwood Village PUD revision) had been withdrawn. A motion for approval of the agenda passed unanimously after being introduced by Cholvin, seconded by Riis. V. WESTWOOD VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT--REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CDP AND A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED GENERALLY AT THE NORTH- • WEST CORNER OF LINCOLN WAY AND MARSHALL AVENUE. MOTION (Kahler, Bledsoe) That this item be brought up for discussion at this time. Motion carried 5 to 0. Mr. Brennan gave some background information regarding this request and indicated that the staff is recommending that this item be tabled due to the following reasons: (1) The CDP should be revised to include Lot 4 within the boundaries of the CDP and that Mr. Skarshaug 's name be noted on. the plan as the owner of the .property to be platted. (2) The older multiple-family units be removed or remodeled (if remodeling is an acceptable alternative) prior to issuance of building permits for any new structures in this development or a specified date be determined by which time the units must be removed or remodeled. (3) That the question of providing adequate parking spaces be addressed by the developer and the PUD plan modified unless he can establish that 124 spaces will be adequate. • (4) That Lot 3 be used for a single-family residential structure. (5) There is a need to make changes in the CDP/PUD as noted in the staff report concerning Lot 4. Mr. Brennan indicated that most of the concerns are minor except with regard to parking spaces and disposition of the older units. With regard to the parking requirements in the area, Mr. Brennan noted that there are no requirements in a PUD plan, but that if the area were being developed conventionally in an R-2 zone, 158 parking spaces would be required. Mr. Kocimski has indicated to staff that he has based the number of parking spaces on the number of bedrooms. Mr. Brennan expressed concern that because of the existing parking problems in the area, 124 spaces may not be adequate. Mr. Kocimski explained the changes being requested in this plan. He noted that his reason for wanting to remodel some of the "chicken coop" apartments is because he recently installed a new mechanical and heating system to serve those and he wanted to continue using that new system. Mr. Douglas Provow, an area resident, indicated that if the Commission was going to table this item, he would not wish to speak at this time and he noted that several people who wished to speak had already left • the meeting because of the lateness of the hour. ,6 MOTION (Bledsoe, Zingg) To table this and refer the five problem • areas back to staff and Mr. Kocimski to be resolved to the best of their ability before the next presentation to the Com- mission at the April 2nd meeting . VOTING AYE: Kahler, Bledsoe, Manatt, Whetstone, and Zingg VOTING NAY: None (Lex and Riis absent) Motion carried 5 to 0. 7 • P�Z CDP/PUD FOR WESTWOOD VILLAGE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LINCOLN WAY AND MARSHALL AVENUE: • Mr. Brennan reviewed the materials that had been provided to the Commission members relative to this subject. He indicated that a letter from David Stephenson, 322 Hickory Drive, as well as a synopsis of the changes between the approved and proposed site plans, had been provided to Commissioners at the start of the meeting tonight. Ms. Whetstone indicated. that she wanted to take a little time to read over the letter from Mr. Stephenson. Some discussion was held regarding the building envelopes and Mr. Brennan indicated that staff had asked the developer to make the envelopes from 5' to 10' larger than the actual area that would be covered by the buildings. A presentation was made by Mrs. Kocimski and .Roger Jensen in favor of the proposed revisions. Mr. Jensen explained the revisions in the PUD by referring to a map with areas designated by numbers 1 through 7. He noted that changes had been made largely due to neighborhood residents ' suggestions. He explained that Mr. Kocimski proposes that all the older units will be removed "prior to issuance of building permits for the final 12 units" of the PUD. He indicated also that the phasing of the development has not been stipulated so that he cannot comment on which units will be the "final 12". There was a great deal of concern expressed by Commission members that • there were no definite dates established for demolition of the structure. Mr. Sherkow wondered if this may be a disincentive since when it came time to build the final 12 units, the economy may be such that it would be more feasible in Mr. Kocimski 's mind to retain the chicken coop apartments rather than construct the final 12 new units. Mrs. Kocimski noted that these chicken coop apartments will serve as a type of more affordable housing until such time that the planned unit development is completed. She said only time will tell which units will be built first--the townhouses or the apartments--(whichever is marketable) and that is why no phasing for development can be established by the developer at this time. Speaking in favor of the development was Mr. Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive , an adjoining property owner. He indicated that Mr. Kocimski had been very cooperative in working with him and has agreed to provide a barrier on the west side of his development adjacent to Mr. Hamilton's property. Mr. Hamilton stated that if Mr. Kocimski will guarantee no more rentals , he is satisfied with the plan the way it is. He indicated that he is not bothered by the chicken coop apartments but that he felt something should be settled with regard to them. Mrs. Kocimski indicated that all the units are planned to be sold and not rented. The reason for the designation on the plan of "apartments" and "townhouses" is the manner of entrance. Mr. Jensen • noted that "townhouses" have a single entry to each unit; the "apart- ments�� are entered from a common hallway or stairway. Y S • PAL Mr. Mike Chambers, 314 Hickory Drive, expressed his feeling that Mr. Kocimski has "bent over backwards" in many areas because of the neigh- borhood residents' concerns. He noted that the chicken coop apartments do not bother him, but he can see there is a problem in trying to pin down a timetable for their removal . The Chairman at this time invited comments from the opposition. Mr. Doug Provow, 3655 Story Street, provided the Commission copies of two petitions signed by area residents--one from residents within 200' of the PUD property and one from area residents farther than 200' away from the property. (Mr. Norm Hamilton, one of the signers of the petition, noted that hey had signed the petition prior to the meeting held at Mr. Kocimski 's home on March 26th. ) Mr. Provow reiterated his concerns as set out in the letter which had previously been provided to Commission members. Those concerns included high density, Mr. Kocimski 's "promise" to remove the old 12-unit apartment, greater traffic problems to small streets, too much flexibility provided using the building envelope concept, "piecemeal development" which could possibly lead to a request from Kocimski for commercial zoning near Lincoln Way, and a 100' curb cut on Marshall for garage access. He recommended that a median cut be made on Lincoln Way for access to the PUD so that most traffic would not use Marshall Avenue. Mr. Sherkow felt more access points onto Lincoln Way should not be encouraged and Mr. Brennan noted that such a median cut would interfere with traffic using the left-turn lane onto Marshall . Mr. Richard Allfree, 3648 Story Street, felt that the fact that most of • the units will be owner-occupied has alleviated much of the concern of the area residents. He felt that the problem of the chicken coops would be taken care of in time as more people buy homes in the development since those people will probably create pressure for removal of the older units. Mr. Allfree felt this development could be a lot worse than the way Mr. Kocimski is proposing it. The possibility of going back to the original plan was discussed; however, it was decided that if that was the route to be taken, nothing could now be added with regard to removal of the chicken coop apartments. Mr. Zingg reiterated the various actions that could be taken: (1) the Commission could deny the requested modifications; (2) the Commission could approve the revisions with whatever stipulations they felt necessary; or (3) the Commission could send it "back to the drawing board". Mrs. Manatt felt that a specific recommendation needed to be given to Council. with regard to the removal of the chicken coop apartments. Mr. Sherkow had five concerns that he felt needed to be dealt with: (1) Some type of barrier should be provided on the eastern edge of the property; (2) Some criteria for removal of the older units should be established; (3) The rental vs. ownership question should be looked at since he was • not certain that there would be a market for so many saleable units; (4) The eight-garage area located near Marshall needs to be revised so that cars will not back out directly onto Marshall Avenue; . r+Z (5) The existing short-cut between Marshall and Lincoln Way be blocked off so traffic cannot use that route to bypass the traffic light on • Marshall and Lincoln Way. Mrs. Manatt wondered how the City could be assured that the development would indeed be built according to the approved plan. Mr. Brennan pointed out that a new procedure is being used by the City whereby the City Attorney prepares a sort of contract that is attached to the final approved plan and it is signed by the city and the developer to assure that each party has the same plan. Some discussion was held regarding whether the Commission should table the matter pending requested revisions or whether they should approve it and attach stipulations. Mr. Jensen wondered if the swimming pool portion of the revised plan could be approved at this time in the event the matter is tabled. The Commissioners felt this was inappropriate and felt that the swimming pool should be considered as part of the overall plan rather than as a separate item. MOTION (Manatt; Kahler) That we recommend approval of the CDP dated February 1980 and the PUD revision dated March 1980 with the following stipulations that are to be incorporated into the PUD plan that goes to City Council : (1) A barrier be provided on the east side of the development; • (2) The garage area along Marshall Avenue be revised so cars will not be backing out directly onto Marshall Avenue; (3) That the "short cut" that now exists from Marshall to Lincoln Way be blocked off; (4) That the sidewalk leading to Edwards School be put back into the plan; and (5) That before any more building permits are issued (excluding the permit for construction of the swimming pool ) , the older "chicken coop" apartments be demolished. Motion carried 5 to 0. The Commissioners expressed a wish that they receive copies of the report which transmits this item to the City Council as well as the plans showing the required revisions. to • P4z A Ile I a. Request by Karol Kocimski to rescind_ a portion of the PUD Plan for Westwood • Village as approved in September, 1975. Dean Brennan explained this request to the Commission indicating that approval would result in a loss of six units from the approved PUD. Ile noted that the Commission and the City Council had approved a revised PUD Plan for Westwood Village in May of 1980, but that plan did not go into effect because Mr. Kocimski had not signed the document due to the stipulation that the older apartments on his property had to be removed before any additional building permits could be issued. Ile indicated that the City Attorney advised him that if the Commission goes along with this revision, the ultimate document would be similar to the plan of 1980 including any stipulations the Commission would include. Mr. Brennan noted that the 1975 plan is still in effect and the Commission is not reviewing the entire plan, just a revision to that plan. The Commission discussed this request. Mr. Zingg noted that since the request represents a change in the PUD, the Commission could review it to the extent that they care to in order to include any stipulations they feel necessary. Mr. Zingg questioned whether a developer could drop a PUD plan or does the Planning and Zoning Commission have to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Brennan stated that a developer could drop a PUD plan which would result in the property reverting to the base zoning. Ile added that Mr. Kocimski's request, if approved, would change the area and the number of units, but the density factor would remain similar to what it was to be originally and so would the green space. Speaking in Favor: • Karol Kocimski, owner and developer of Westwood Village, stated that lot 4, upon which lie wants to construct a single-family dwelling, is a fully equipped lot with utilities and he has been paying taxes on it as a separate lot. Mr. Kocimski described his professional stature and experience. He discussed the "chicken coops" and how they have been remodeled. Mr. Kocimski stated that his neighbor, Mr. Hamilton, favored the construction of a single-family dwelling on lot 4 because it would be adjacent to his property. Mr. Kocimski indicated that lie planned to live in the dwelling constructed on lot 4 and to sell his other home because it is too large. Ile noted that he has willed Westwood Village to Iowa State University as an endowment upon the deaths of himself and his wife. Mr. Kahler noted that with this request, Mr. Kocimski was taking away from the plan lte originally laid out before the Commission. Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive, stated that lie did not care about the chicken coops and whether they stayed or were removed. He indicated that it is almost harrassment that each year Mr. Kocimski asks for some other change. He liked the idea of a single-family dwelling on lot 4. lie wished that something could be decided upon so that this area would not continually change. He felt that the residents of the area are owed some consideration. Speaking in Opposition: Douglas Provow, 3655 Story Street, stated that the request Mr. Kocimski submitted • would he acceptable if it had been presented with the original PUD, but at this time it presents more problems. This request puts the idea of a PUD on trial. II . P4z lie indicated that if this change is approved, it will encourage Mr. Kocimski to come back with more revisions and may set a precedent for allowing these . same rights to other developers, resulting in sky-rocketing workloads for the City. He stated that lot 4 is a good barrier for Westwood Village but the . buffer concept for other neighbors has been lost. Mr. Provow stated that the site barriers have not been addressed nor has the promise to remove the chicken coops been addressed. Ile believes that all of the conditions included in the 1980 plan should be put in this new plan if this request is approved. Mr. Provow noted that Mr. Kocimski has not discussed the plan for the single-family dwelling on lot 4. Ile believes that Mr. Kocimski should be turned down. Ruth Kinderman, 121 McDonald Drive, discussed the location of her property and requested a fence be put up between her property and the driveway that is on Mr. Kocimski's property. She does not have any objections to the plan as proposed. Melvin Popelka, 3649 Story Street, asked about the 1975 plan and stated that Mr. Kocimski comes back every year with changes. If this request is approved, the Commission should stipulate that no more changes be made. Mr: Popelka compared these frequent changes to Mr. Kocimski's plan as harrassment. He noted that the tennis courts were put where the swimming pool was suppose to be. Mr. Popelka suggested that the stipulations from the 1980 plan be brought forward with this request. Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive, addressed the need for a screening fence between Mr. Kocimski's property and the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Kocimski stated that he had never promised to tear down the chicken • coops. He indicated he would stay with the 1975 plan and stated that he has every right to come before the Commission as many times as he'd like. Mr. Manatt stated that in looking at the PUD itself as a concept, it is a unit and the Commission looks at the total unit. It has advantages for the developer and the City. The advantage for the developer would be that he could sell his existing home and also have a large lot to build on. She asked what the advantages were for the City. She noted that the City would lose five townhouses and only gain one single-family dwelling. Mr. Zingg asked about the rights of developers in terms of selling pieces of the PUD. Mr. Wooldridge indicated that as long as the land is platted or as long as there are only two divisions, the land can be sold. If Mr. Kocimski would build a single-family dwelling on lot 4, he would have every right to sell or give to the University everything except lots 3 and 4, assuming this request were approved. Mr. Zingg asked if the request is approved and if it is stipulated that lot 4 be used for a single-family dwelling, would this hold up. Mr. Wooldridge stated that if the lot were freed up as a general platted lot and zoned R-2, either a single family or a two-family dwelling could be built by right. The lot could not be freed up and then have stipulations put on it; however, in order for a duplex to be built, it would have to be approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Manatt stated that she does not mind the idea of amending a PUD, but • if the Commission amends a PUD it should not be done by subtraction; it destroys the unit idea we are looking at. IZ - P4z r Sherkow with Mrs. Manatt and stated that he objected to slicing M She o agreed th s 7 • off pieces of a PUD. Ms. Whetstone concurred and indicated that she did not like the idea of changing a PUD. She noted that the other changes that the Commission has discussed have never been accomplished. MOTION: (Whetstone/Sherkow) Move that we deny this request. DISCUSSION: Mr. Zingg stated that he was in sympathy with the change Mr. Kocimski was requesting and if the change was being recommended in the context of the existing PUD he would favor it. Mr. Zingg indicated that Mr. Kocimski could come with the change in the existing PUD boundaries and get this settled. He does not have any problem with people asking for changes in a PUD. Mr. Zingg stated that a developer has every right to come before the Commission with changes to a PUD since there are changes, such as in the economy, that might affect a PUD. Mr. Kahler agreed with Mr. Zingg and made the following amendment to the motion: Recommend that a fence be included in the 1975 plan which would go between the Hamilton and Kocimski property and the Kinderman and Kocimski property from Hickory Drive down to the edge of the Skarshaug property at 120 McDonald Drive. • Mrs. Manatt questioned the inclusion of other stipulations along with the fence and Mr. Sherkow suggested discussing all the stipulations in the 1980 plan. Mr. Zingg noted that if the fence stipulation is approved, then the Commission could recommend to Council that all the stipulations •be made a part of the 1975 plan. Mr. Sherkow indicated that the Commission could consider unilaterally adopting the stipulations as drafted by the City Attorney conditional upon the legality of doing this before it is forwarded to the City Council. After further discussion on the idea of unilaterally adopting the 1980 stipulations, and staff noting that some of those stipulations may not be applicable now, Mr. Kahler withdrew his amendment to include a privacy fence. The Commission agreed that the inclusion of these stipulations should be discussed at a later date after the legality of this is reviewed by the City Attorney. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion to deny the request. Westwood Village - A request by Karol Kocimski to revise a portion of the approved PUD Plan for Westwood Village • Dean Brennan reported on Mr. Kocimski's request for a revision to the northwest corner of the approved 1975 PUD Plan which would reduce the number of units from nine to eight to include six townhouses and two single-family dwellings. Mr. Brennan directed the Commission to a map included in the staff report depicting the zoning lines of the R1-10 and R-2 districts. Ile stated that staff recommends approval of the request subject to the stipulations as outlined in the Development Plan for Westwood Village. Mr. Brennan added that the staff also recommends that barriers be constructed on the east and west boundaries of the development. Specifically, a barrier should be constructed on the west going south along the Hamilton and Kinderman properties to the present fence and on the east along the Provow property. These barriers would be privacy fences. The Commission discussed this request. Mr. Zingg noted that since this request was for a PUD revision, the zoning designations were not as relevant as they were to the previous request. He questioned the reasoning behind including the definition of a family in the plan for Westwood Village. John Klaus, City Attorney, explained that it was included because of a PUD's relationship to surrounding zoning. Ms. Whetstone suggested that the site plan indicate the proposed barriers and all of the stipulations included in the development plan. She added that this would be helpful in eliminating any questions regarding what the Commission approved and would remove the possibility of destroying other aspects of the Development Plan for Westwood Village. Mr. Klaus discussed the PUD concept as it relates to a contract. Ile noted that • people are not allowed to zone by contract, however, under the PUD regulations the property owner is allowed to do something other' than what lie is allowed under the established zoning regulations. The property owner submits to the planning process and whatever items of concern are establisled to the public's satisfaction and he is bound by that. This is evidenced by a written document. Mr'. Klaus recommended that everything done and said since 1975 regarding Westwood Village should be documented and also any changes that have occurred and any future plans. Mr. Klaus stated that the Commission should establish in written words what the approved plan is for Westwood Village. Commission members were concerned that the plan they were considering included all of the changes and was up to date. Mr. Slierkow related his frustration with the number of requests for changes to the Westwood Village PUD and stated that the entire .PUD could be changed over a period of time. He suggested that there be an integrated and comprehensive scheme on how the PUD relates to surrounding land and he noted that the Commission has no assurance that Mr. Kocimski will not come back with further revisions. Patrick Switz, Director of Community Development, explained that there is nothing in the ordinance which would prevent Mr. Kocimski from coming back with more revisions from time to time. However, staff is responsible for making sure that any revisions submitted maintain the integrity of the original plan. Mr. Switz indicated that the requested revision to the northeast corner is not divergent from what has already been approved and could result in a better plan. . Mr. Kahler indicated that residents of the surrounding areas are very frustrated with all the changes. ! - P4z Keith Rollenhagen, representing Mr. Kocimski, addressed the Commission. Mr. Zingg • asked about Mr. Kocimski's willingness to agree to Section 2(e) of the Development Plan which stipulates that the apartments ("Chicken coops") be removed. Mr. Rollenhagen stated he had no authorization to discuss this, however, he noted that a timetable to remove the "chicken coops" had been discussed between the City and Mr. Kocimski at one time. Mr. Sherkow asked about the elimination of the short cut from Marshall Avenue to Lincoln Way and Mr. Rollenhagen stated that Mr. Kocimski agreed to this and all other conditions established in the Plan except for Section 2(e) . The Commission discussed the parking stalls and noted that their location was not shown on the site plan. They discussed the gate which is a stipulation in the 1975 Plan to eliminate the short cut and asked why it was not included on the site plan. Mr. Klaus recommended that the staff get all of these stipulations down on paper so that what is being planned and approved is known. In addition, Mr. Zingg noted that the plan did not show Mr. Kocimski's signature. Mr. Switz indicated that the reason the 1980 plan was never approved was because Mr. Kocimski would not sign it because it required the removal of the "chicken coops." He indicated that Mr. Kocimski may not be willing to sign the document this time because the stipulation to remove the "chicken coops" is still included. Mr. Zingg referred to the proposed electric gate to be constructed to deter people from using the short cut. He was concerned about maintenance and asked whether a statement on maintenance should be part of the stipulation. The Commission discussed other alternatives besides an electric gate. Permanent closure of the Lincoln Way entrance would have an effect on the apartments, however, restricting the • Lincoln Way point to ingress and eliminating egress would be a good solution because it would eliminate the need for a gate and the concern over maintenance. Public Comments Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive, stated that the revision was acceptable to him, however, he was concerned about the barrier fence, i.e. , how it would be constructed, what type of material would be used, who would maintain it, what size it would be. He asked that the fence be constructed before Mr. Kocimski begins construction. Ruth Kinderman, 121 McDonald, was concerned about the height of the fence and asked if it would meet with another fence that was already in place. She stated a fence would deter any cross foot traffic. Charles Benn, 230 Hickory Drive, asked that the privacy fence be extended from the Kinderman property to the Skarshaug property; that is, from Hickory Drive south to where it intersects the Skarshaug property. MOTION: (Whetstone/Sherkow) Move we table this witli instructions to staff to show the following on the site plan: a. the east and west barriers including: height of at least 6 feet; extent; maintenance; material made of; at what point in time will the barriers be constructed. b. the short cut showing the elimination of the egress from the site to Lincoln Way with actual physical curbing to be installed at the time the Marshall Avenue entrance is open. C. a diagram of the parking stalls in the southeast corner showing which way they are going. d. the signature of Mr. Kocimski indicating the • limitations he would go to on the plan as presented, with him being made aware of his option to object to some of the stipulations. Amendment (Hoffman) - That the plan be shown to the City Attorney to obtain legal counsel. Motion carried unanimously. • • �� • Y�z • ����s-T � , Ili WESTWOOD VILLAGE REVISED PUD PLAN • This agenda item was tabled from the Commission meeting of June 3, 1981. Mr. Wooldridge presented a letter from Mr. Kocimski to members of the Commission. Mr. Brennan presented a brief memo from the staff as well as a planning document for Westwood Village. Changes to the document were made as requested by the Commission at the last meeting. The changes are as follows: (1) in the northwest corner of the revised plan, a six-foot privacy fence is shown along the west property line adjacent to the Hamilton property and the Kinderman property and is indicated on the site plan; (2) a six-foot privacy fence is shown adjacent to the Provow property, 30 feet back from the street right-of-way line, and a four-foot fence is indicated from the right-of-way line to the point where it joins the six-foot fence; (3) also shown on the site plan is the central area as revised which includes the present location of the tennis court and the approved location of the swimming pool; (4) an electric gate is shown at the Marshall Avenue driveway and the property owner is responsible for the maintenance of that gate; if the gate is removed or damaged, the property owner must replace or repair it within 48 hours. At the last meeting, it was suggested by the staff and agreed to by the Commission that the driveway on Lincoln Way be changed so that it would allow only ingress. Mr. Kocimski did not want to go along with that solution and preferred that an electric gate at the Marshall Avenue exit be installed. The planning document was changed to reflect that there be an electric gate at the Marshall Avenue driveway. Mr. Kocimski indicated that lie is agreeable to all stipulations and all aspects of planning document except on page 3, item J, regarding the pre-1975 apartments. The document provides two alternatives. Alternative 1 indicates that no zoning or building permits will be issued for buildings in the PUD until the pre-1975 apartments are removed with the exception that a permit will be issued for the construction of the swimming pool. Alternative 2, the demolition of the pre-1975 apartments shall occur prior to the issuance of the building permit for the final 12 units. Mr. Brennan indicated that Mr. Kocimski will sign the planning document if Alternative 2 is the alternative that is agreeable to the Commission and to the City Council. Keith Rollenliagen, Mr. Kocimski_'s representative, spoke with regard to the question of the short cut and how it should be handled. He indicated that at the last meeting it seemed that blocking the egress was a good option and one that they should go along with. However, he stated that Mr. Kocimski is constrained by articles in his mortgage for the first 25 units built, that there be an ingress and egress easement across his property at that point. Mr. Kocimski does not feel that he could unilaterally void them. Therefore, the use of the electric gate seemed like the only other alternative to solve the concerns about the short cut. Mr. Sherkow asked if a change in the articles of the mortgage had been investigated in order to change the access. Mr. Rollenhagen said it had not. Mr. Sherkow stated that it be suggested to the holder of the note that a substitution be made of access rights. Mr. Kahler questioned whether Mr. Kocimski meant in his letter that he did not agree with all of paragraph J? The answer was that the deletion referred • only to Alternative 1 in paragraph J. �� • Piz Speaking in Favor Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive, questioned what was meant by the setback line. Staff answered that the setback line is 30 feet from the front property line. Ile also indicated lie would like the honeysuckle hedge removed and the fence put in along the lot line, so it would look like a nice job. Mr. Hamilton stated that lie did not see one thing wrong with having the older apartments there. David Smith, tenant of the "Coops", spoke in favor of the pre-1975 apartments being maintained for a few years. They are economical, the landlord provides good maintenance, and it is a quality environment. Speaking in Opposition Douglas Prov_ow, 3655 Story Street, indicated that the neighbors to the east supported Alternative 1 of Paragraph J; the removal of the pre-1975 units. He stated that the privacy fence on the east side is shown only part of the way and would allow car lights into the bedrooms of the houses on the north side of Story Street. Mr. Zingg stated that it appears that the fence went all the way to the edge of the school property and went as far south as it could. lie questioned whether Mr. Provow was suggesting that the drive extends 100 feet north of the proposed fence and lights from vehicles could shine into the rear yards of the houses on the north side of Story Street. Melvin Popelka, 3649 Story Street, stated that lie agreed with Mr. Provow's comments. Keith Rollenhagen asked what the real objections were to the pre-1975 structures. Mr. Zingg replied that there was no short answer. Mr. Rollenhagen then asked if the Commission felt it was customary to destroy rental property before beginning development. Mr. Sherkow replied that in Ames and other cities in Iowa it is. Mr. Zingg added that the units would either be removed or included in the plan. Mr. Kaliler asked that the letter from Mr. Kocimski say that he is in agreement with Paragraph J, Alternative 2. Mr. Sherkow indicated that Mr. Kocimski will have to sign the plan in the final form with one alternative or the other. Mrs. Manatt said that as long as Mr. Kocimski is in favor of everything except one alternative, we should go ahead and leave the electric gate in the plan. She went on to say that this was - put in as a planning tool to avoid potential problems and if it is taken out, it will put the City on the defensive. Mr. Zingg asked Mr. Kocimski if he would be willing to swap 12 units for the "chicken coops" on the PUD plan. Mr. Kocimski replied that he sent a very clear letter to the Commission detailing what lie would accept. In addition, lie discussed all aspects of the plan with the professional City staff and on the basis of their recommendations he prepared his plan. • Mr. Zingg went back to the original question, "Suppose you were to say, all right, you want the pre-1975 apartments to exist on into the future. Why don't we make them a solid line and include them as part of your planned unit development and strike 12 units someplace in the development?" Mr. Kocimski replied that he did not like this suggestion. Mr. Zingg then said lie could come back later and ask for a change to tear down the "chicken coops" and build 12 other units. Mrs. Manatt stated that according to the research that the staff has done, apparently the continuing problem with the "chicken coops" relates to the breaking of a verbal agreement. Since it was not put into the form of any official resolution, there are no teeth to this agreement. Mrs. Manatt stated that she is ready to move off this issue. She felt everyone had learned a lesson. Mr. Zingg said that lie felt the same way as Mrs. Manatt. Ms. Whetstone stated that she reread the minutes from the City Council and felt that it is all in how you interpret what went on. She thought this was a change from the original plan and when you change a PUD plan, you'd better consider what this means for other PUD's. She felt she could not go along with leaving the pre-1975 apartments there. Mrs. Hoffman stated that the "chicken coops" were not offensive to her. However, she said that she did attend several of the Council meetings and planning meetings in prior years and she felt that there was a verbal commitment with the neighbors to tear those apartments down. She went on to say she did • not agree with the approach Mr. Kocimski was taking, but that legally it is within his rights to make changes because it is not tied down in writing. She felt torn because there was a verbal agreement. Mr. Sherkow stated that the Commission should not accept something the Commission is not happy with, the neighbors are not happy with, and the Council is not going to be happy with. Ile indicated this is not a plan; what is down on this plan is really not what is going to be built. As a consequence this will come back again several times. MOTION: (Manatt/Iloffman) Move we accept the plan given to us, using Paragraph J, Alternative 2, and extend the east side fence to the north the total length of the driveway. AMENDMENT: (Manatt/Iloffman) Motion was amended to include the west fence be on the lot line and the developer remove the hedge that exists there. Motion failed: 3 for (Zingg, Manatt, Kahler) , 3 opposed (Sherkow, Whetstone, Hoffman) L.1 , i183 1 , INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH KAROL KOCIMSKI REGARDING WESTWOOD VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Mr. Kocimski discussed future plans for his PUD, which included construction of a seven-story apartment building with a clubhouse located on the second floor. According to Mr. Kocimski , his attorney has had discussions with the City Attorney whom the City Council has given authority regarding future development in the PUD. At the last City Council discussion concerning Mr. Kocimski ' s PUD, it was agreed that no further development could occur until the 12 apartments to the north (AKA "chicken coops") were razed. Mr. Kocimski explained that he needed to keep those 12 apartments, which have all been remodelled, until his loan with the bank was paid. The number of units planned in his PUD is 77 and 25 have already been built. Mr. Kocimski asked whether the Commission would support him in holding on to the 12 existing remodelled apartments until he was ready to build the last 12 units of his PUD. At that time, he would raze the remodelled units. Mrs. Manatt stated the Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council , but since the Commission did not have enough information, she did not believe a recommendation should be made. Mr. Kocimski pointed out he was just asking for the Commission' s opinion. Mr. Brennan explained that the PUD Plan the Commission was provided with -was approved in 1975 and modified in 1980 to allow for the construction of a swimming pool . At that time the P-C documentation was approved. In 1980 another plan was submitted and that was approved by City Council , but the plan documentation was never signed by Mr. Kocimski because it stipulated that before a building permit could be issued, the 12 older, remodelled units had to be removed. Therefore, the 1975 plan was the approved plan. • The Commission discussed the approved plan and what was to be built on each lot in the PUD. Mr. Cooper stated he would prefer to wait on further discussion of Mr. Kocimski ' s request until City Council ' s prior stipulation regarding the 12 older apartment units was resolved. Mrs . Hoffman recorarnended that Mr. Kocimski obtain a report from his attorney and tre City Attorney, and after that the Commission could discuss a change if it was recommended. Mr. Fouts stated that the Commission would not have objections once things were resolved, but until prior concerns and disagreements between Mr. Kocimski and the City were a• .salved, the Commission would not recommend further modifcations to thel�h��„ • • �� . ��z