HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
'" "'-_"-~_,,"'_'~o;-~. -""''''':i'''';'' -:t;~~:;.~~~~;;-;~~p:~~..~}.>.Y t~~:'<.P-5..~,?::?~:{~<(.-t~:;.:+~:.~~'\r<~:~~~t:~~:}~~\j-f:/z:~;:~'_~ " .:.~~~ _ _ ;~...:. -~':~::::~~;::~~;,'.:'~'~_:
83-121 &83-122: These requests a re for.th~ptirpo~~i ~{:',~5t~~11~hirig~~r~ane~t ,zon i ng , in,
the Shenandoah subdivision which is '1ocatedonthe'eas,~sld~()f:;~~i;~.~.~o~~h()f Barron .~d.
The subject .t racts were p 1at ted ....~nd.. un.d~rdev~.l ()pment. .R"'J()~..J()...~.pP7?<~.~;I()n '~I1~the...,.b~l~I1.fe'
., ofadj acenta.rea was recentlyanp7~eq/.a?d is .,predort1tRftel),YAP3P~w.i.~h~f~~~eF~d;;r7~Jt\.
, "commerc,la..l,. and agr 1 cu ltura..l}.Is~s~...YE.The.,Comp~~9~n~tyeel~!1.~~O~cF~;.~,h,ez~recl-~.,./F""
density res,l dent I al uses w l.th. commercl a 1. ..l.Isesreflected..,at Barron. RdJSH6 0:
c
The R-l portIon of therequest(s) Is compatible with existing and planned uses, and approval
of the R-lportion' of83-122is'recommended. The proposedC-l area does not comp 1 y wi th
the developmentpollcleswfthrespect to depth. The applIcants were advised of this by
both the staff and theCommlssion at the time of platting, prior to annexation. The C-l
area Is adJacent to' theproposedPUDarea,alow density residential area. A retail con-
venlencefoodstoreis locatedln the proposed C-larea. The proposed G-l area is platted
and located so that residentlaldevelopment at this location would be difficult, therefore
staff recommends that the Commission consider the following alternatives: (1) Denial of
the C-lpo~tlonand a wal vel" ofthel80 day wa I tlng per iod for<resubmlss ion of another re~
ques t;{2J~"Approvalof C~N.zonlng at the reta llfood stor~: loc'at Ion with some other com-
.mercial.~onlng such as A,.;Por C-Jfor the balance of the commercial area. The proposed
PUD IsaJ.owdensltyresldential area that will be developed as detached residences with
varying setbacks and built in accordance with building code requirements {similar to Wood-
PUD}~ PUD considerationusuallyindudesa preliminary plat as well as development
ans',atthe ,tlmeof'the rezonlng,butplats of this development' wereapp'rovedprior to
Staff' has ,someconcernwlthrespect-to'thelocat ion, of the requ ired common
which is outside the PUDal1dis.normallyinside oradjacenttothePUD, however if
Commlsslon lsconfortablewlth the location, staff would recommend approval of the
ttal PUDrequest.
Blk
c
No one else spoke. Public hearIng was closed. Mr. Bailey said his only problemwlth this
r~quest Is the commonly owned area which is removed from the PUD and is located in the
middle of a single family residential area; then added it really is not a problem. Mr.
~allaway stated again th~tlneffect,:theCommission is doing site plan review,consider-
'ng v~rlable setbacks, f,~ewalls, etc. in this PUD request, and to that extent the site
plan IS a part of PUD zonIng. ,He stated the preliminary plat which is required had been
approved some time ago whent?fs deve}opmentwasstill outside the City Limits, and there
w!ll be no more s!te pl~~ ~evlew forthfs PUD. He also stated that the final plat for the
first phase offhlS sub(hv~sion has a! ready been approved by p&Z and Council. Mr. Hill
referred to theZonln~Ordlnanc~.~ectlonon'PUDdeveiopment, and Mr. Callaway said these
deve~ope:s had offe:el.l .andsubmlt:ed ~artof these plans previously and others with this
appllcatlon~referrln~ tothera~los Included~,ith'the application which constitute the
development~'an portIon. He saId the only aspect not yet received is the Homeowners
agreement whIch must be presented to the legal department for consideration~He said the
steps taken by these develo~ershad been,spread'over different occasions, and the Wood-
:reek PUD. request had' co~eln all at once. ' Mr: Hill requested that conceptual plans be
Included In the packets 'n'the future. Mr. Bailey asked If the City had ever had a
common area, In a PUDsomewhat removedfrom'thatPUD,and Mr, Callaway replied that it had
not, and thIS common area will serve the entire'subdivlslon,not just the PUD.
granted permission; then
'~~AGENDA'ITEMNO.5: 83-122:
~"
<~' P&I M t nutes
11-17 -83
page 6
~
Ph i 1
c
(
prejudIce, with Mr. Martyn secgnding.Mr.'Hil1 explained thatthi'smeans the app'licant
can come, back with a request concern'ingthis land within th~ 180 day waiting period, but
"'will go on to Counci'l' on this reques't'a's scheduled. Mr'. Wendt' asked to speak. Mr. Bailey
called the question. Mr. Hansen asked Mr. 'Wendt' if ,the' applicant had a zoning classifi-
cation other than C-'l that he would like to"present'to the Commission. Mr. Wendt said
that they would llke to'accommodatethe,Comml'ssion but would also like to see,a recom-
mendation from the Commission forwarded to CObnc,il, and further that C-Nor A-P would be
acceptable. ,Mr. Miller said that he believes 'the 200ft. depth is too little to support
most commerc'lal'development, and,' he would not be able ,to support either a C-l or a C-3
request there. . 'Votes were cast and the' mot'ion' to der-'Y, the C-l portion of the ,request
wIthout prejudice carried 4-1 with"Mr. 'Hansen voting against it.
that perhaps the' present
buslness'tract'coul'd:be"zone,d C-N,-with"t,he:remai'n'ing acreage zoned either A-P or C-3.
Mr. 'Harisen',,!t~:r:':. Bailey, and'Mr. Martyn"said,'they were agreeable to this; Mr. Miller said
he would prefer sa'idany combination of C-N, 'A-P and C-,3 would
suit him.