11-20-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2638 B-6 Amendment November 17,2000 Page 2 M The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows. The proposed standards for landscaping are attaclied as Exhibit B, and would replace Section 10.45 Subd. 6(H). Note that the standards in the current subsections H, I, K, L and M are incorporated into the new Subd. 6(H). The existing D-6 architectural standards in Subd. 6 include the following: J.Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. The proposed architectural standards are attached as Exhibit C, would replace subsection J with a new Subd. 6(1). The proposed landscaping and architectural standards are nearly identical to those proposed for the RPUD district, but an attempt has been made to eliminate residential use references, since the B-6 is a strictly commercial zone. Note that the office poition of the Dunbar project is being reviewed as a rezoning to B-6, and these general standards liave been forwarded to the developer’s landscape architect as a guideline. Add Clinic to List of B-6 Permitted Uses During the review of the B-6 Section and in attempting to determine which zoning district the Dunbar office project should fall under, staff concluded that rezoning to B-6 would be necessary as oppsed to B-4, because B-4 does not allow PUD’s. While the B-4 Office and Professional District lists "Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" as a permitted use, the most closely related B-6 permitted, use is "A Offices (business and professional)". Staff feels it would be appropriate to add "Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" to the list of permitted uses in B-6. This would more correctly accommodate the medical office building proposed at the Dunbar site, and is generally in keeping with the City’s intent for the B-6 district as identified in CMP Amendment #2 (the 1988 Highway 12 Corridor Study) which is carried forward in the 2000-2020 CMP (Excerpt attaclied as Exhibit D). Unfortunately, this did not come to light until after the notice for the B-6 amendment was published. Consequently, no formal hearing can be held on this element of the proposed amendments. However, if Planning Commission feels this is a non-controversial amendment, a hearing could be held at the Council level in December or early January at the discretion of the Council.