Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1885 <br />May 13, 1994 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />5. <br />8. <br />This property is located close to a commercial/industrial road. The unique, flat <br />elevations from Highway 12 to County Road 6 provide little relief from the noises <br />and odors from heavy trafficked area. <br />This property is located within a sewer and water district of the City and reflected <br />planning for more intense uses in the Highway 12 Study Area. Municipal water <br />systems and sewer systems were developed. The developer of Tandem Properties <br />could have asked for sewer as sewer is immediately located to the northeast of the <br />property. This would not have been allowed because the area was never <br />designated for special consideration in the City’s Comprehensive Plan nor is the <br />property located within a sewer or water district. <br />The property is not located within a shoreland area where higher densities would <br />nave been denied. <br />The Highway 12 Corridor Study Area was designed to allow for PUD use <br />recognizing the special needs of the area and the need to provide innovative <br />choices and standards in the development of the areas. The PUD zoning is not <br />offered in other areas of the City, only the Highway 12 aica. This was a <br />deliberate move on the part of the City to limit its use. The flat elevations, the <br />high water table and the random and numerous wetlands throughout this property <br />suggest the need for clustering. <br />In the original planning of this specific study area located between Willow Drive <br />and Old Crystal Bay Road, there was a definite plan to provide transitional zoning <br />from the more intense uses at the south to a less intense use to the north. The <br />goal is to provide a buffer to the existing rural residential development to the east <br />and north. A PUD format at moderately higher densities could provide the <br />necessary buffer, similar to a 2 acre plat. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1.Has there been an adequate reduction in density? Should there be additional <br />reductions? <br />How do you feel about the rezoning of the southern 30 acres to 1 acre to achieve a 44 <br />unit density? Again, this has been offered as the means of addressing the need to <br />provide transitional zones from intense commercial to 1 unit per 2 acre densities. <br />Will you allow designated wetlands to be altered as they will encroach obvious building <br />envelopes of Lots 28, 29, 32, 34 and 35?