03-20-1989 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MmiTBS OF THE FIAHHIHG CCEHUSSIOH MBBTI1I6 NIIBCH 20, 1989 ZOaiEG FILE il386-OTTBH COHTIH1 time the sketch plan review was done, the questions of buffering to the north and an east/west service road were discussed. Since that time, those items have been specifically addressed. An east/west service road out lot has been designated allowing for the setbacks required ./ith a B-1 zoning. A retention pond has also been designated. Chairman Kelley suggested that the specifications of B-1 zoning be briefly reviewed. Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that there was an existing B-1 corridor to the east of the subject property. Should the Otten proposal be approved, it would extend that corridor. Initially it was proposed that Lots A and B be developed with multiple-family dwellings. Since then, however, the owner of Parcels A and B, has sold the individual lots for single family residential use. Mabusth further mentioned that there is a proposed subdivision that Mr. Otten will complete in the near future. Mabusth suggested that Pine Ridge Lane be vacated at the time of the subdivlsior. and that access be secured to Lot B. Since Lots A and B will stay in single family residential use, the commercial lire is now proposed to be moved up along the southern border of Dickey Lake Drive. Landscape buffering along that boundary was presented at the first commercial site plan review. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that the B-1 zoning classification was not designed for the Highway 12 Corridor, as it is more compatible with limited neighborhood commercial. In comparing the B-1 zoning with the B-6, Mabusth questioned why design criteria was not established for the B-6 as it was for B- 1. She did not know why it would not be the same criteria as a PUD. Mabusth pointed out that the commercial use that exists to the east is not true B-1, it's more of a shopping center commercial use. In Mabusth's opinion, the PUD would >e more appropriate for Mr. Otten's proposal than the B-1. Mabusth suggested that the Otten application be forwarded on to the Council in order to receive conceptual direction and some form of a commitment regarding the approval of the PUD ordinance. Once the PUD ordinance has been approved and is in place, the*0tten rezoning can be completed. Chairman Kelley expressed his concern involved with the resale and a more intensified retail use of this property in the future. He thought the use Mr. Otten was proposing was ideal for the location. Mabusth asked Kelley if he would be more comfortable with the PUD zoning for this application since the PUD would require approval to change the use. She questioned whether the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 would occur as one;parcel or whether the subdivision would be required at all. Bellows commented that if the application came in as one PUD for all 13 acres, that Mr. Otten may need to file the subdivisicn first or not at all. Mr. Otten Interjected that he is not asking for a PUD.