HomeMy WebLinkAboutKissler AZ Cover SheetSTAFF SUMMARY
OF
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Project Name: Kissler Annexation
Case No(s).: AZ-03-018
Applicant: BRS Architects
P&Z Commission Hearing Date: September 4, 2003
Recommendation: Approve with a Development Agreement
Summary of Public Hearing:
Bill Strite, representing all four property owners, testified in favor and agreed with all
proposed staff conditions except the requirement for a concept plan (condition #3).
The Commission’s discussion focused heavily on whether a master concept plan was a
benefit to the City or if requiring a CUP for each future user was sufficient. While their
final motion was unanimous and retained the requirement for a concept plan, the
Commission was somewhat divided on this issue during the discussion.
Mr. David Thurston testified in opposition to the C-G zone. He supports a master concept
plan and strongly supports transitional uses, preferably residential.
Ms. Betty Rossow agreed with Mr. Thurston’s testimony. She prefers office as a
transitional use instead of high density residential.
Mr. Steve Grant agreed with Mr. Thurston’s testimony. He’s opposed to the annexation
without a development plan.
Ms. Janet Ruwe testified in favor of the annexation and agreed with the requirement for
all future uses to be conditional use.
Mr. Greg Eagy testified in favor of the annexation. He stated he may construct a
commercial office building on his property. He stated he does not have any kind of
agreement with the other two property owners (Ruwe and Cobbs) other than to request
annexation.
Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: None
Outstanding Issues for City Council:
1. Review and discuss the letter from BRS Architects (dated 10/08/03) which proposes to
remove the DA requirement for a conceptual master plan on the six parcels at the
southwest corner of the Eagle/Ustick intersection.
(Note: Staff remains strongly in favor of a concept plan being a condition of the DA for
the west side of the intersection. Also, since the P&Z Commission hearing, we have had
discussions with the applicant, potential developers and a property owner (Ruwe) and
understand that the three property owners on the west side are not able to come to an
agreement regarding internal cross access, designated uses or development timeframes.
However, since the annexation application was a joint application, signed by all four
subject property owners, and since a Development Agreement must be entered into by all
affected owners, staff considers it reasonable to require a coordinated plan which
demonstrates future development patterns.)