HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesAGENDA ITEM N0, 6: Consideration of an appeal to :the Project. Review Committee's
.decision to require a sidewalk along the Longmire Drive frontage for the proposed Bovine Elite
facility at 3300 Longmire Drive.: (95-405)
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer informed the.Commission that the applicant is appealing the decision
of the Committee to require a sidewalk along the Longmire Drive frontage due to the. fact. that the
surrounding properties do not have sidewalks. The applicant has suggested that the City construct and
assess the propertyowners for theirportion of thesidewalk so .that thesidewalks are continuous along.
Longmire Drive. In a related case, the Longmire Mini-Storage at 3400 Longmire Drive built. a sidewalk
required by the City's Sidewalk Master Plan as a part of their site plan.. Staff recommended denial of the
variance request due to-.consistency. and to support the Committee's decision to follow the Sidewalk
Master Plan. The. question is whether or not the City. plans to follow the.. Sidewalk Master Plan and
require the construction of this .sidewalk or to selectively enforce this plan on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Gribou moved to deny the appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require
a sidewalk along the Longmire Drive. frontage of the' proposed Bovine Elite facility at 3300 Longmire
Drive. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance. amendment to
clarify the requirements of the Overlay,District. (95-809
Senior Planner. Kuenzel informed the Commission that recent .discussions relating. to a .proposed.
development within the Overlay District have uncovered the need for clarification'of the restrictions so
that they are truly in Iine with the intent of the district as it was created. In 1991, in response to
Council's desire to protect the area of University Drive west of the Bypass. and to create an "entrance"
quality, City staff prepared a study and made recommendations.. As a result of formal adoption of the
recommendations, a C-B district was developed hat lists uses that tend to lend themselves: to attractive
sites (hotels, restaurants, etc.) and much of the area was rezoned to this district.. However, it .was also
realized that restricting the actual land uses in the area would not be enough to create an attractive
entrance into the City. An "overlay district" that would not change the underlying district regulations.
but rather add to them by addressing primarily aesthetic controls. was also created and applied to all of
the property with frontage on this portion of'University Drive. The intent of the. Overlay District
restrictions was to first meet all of the underlying district regulations, and then to ensure compliance
with the additional requirements. of the ..overlay district. In most cases, the overlay district is more
restrictive. Therefore,.. language was added to state that "in cases of conflict between this overlay
district and the underlying zones, the overlay district takes precedence". The wording of this. sentence
has prompted some readers to .suggest that .where the overlay district is less restrictive, the less
restrictive regulation should apply. This assertion is not in compliance with the intent of the ordinance.
Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment
concerning the requirements of the. overlay district. as presented. Commissioner.. Garner seconded the
motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other business.
There was no other business.
P & Z Minutes September 2I 1885 Page 6 of 7