05-29-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

>• residential was done In order to limit curb cuts and traffic generation on 15 that was anticipated if left as commercial. (This was a typical strategy of the Council at the time.) In light of this the Council may consider: A. Rezoning of the property although this may have an impact on the type of development that comes to the property between lots and Bayshire lots which were expected to be some type of low to moderate residential density. B. Leave as is. It would be staff's position that there needs to be a registration and awareness of these types of proposals and if the current ordinance doesn't require such, then it be so amended. This does not mean that the City should be in a position to discourage such activity. Whether it is regulated under City ordinance or not it does not prevent Mr. Penke's type of business from being licensed by the County. The issue of Mr. Penke's continued business on the site needs to be addressed. Because of the fact that the zoning is a new issue and Mr. Penke has been doing business on this site for three years, it may be appropriate that the Council action to continue it for at least 60 days pending the possible rezoning of th'^ property. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. Ordinance Regulation 1. Acceptance of Information from I he City Attorney on ordinance interpretation. 2. Discuss what action the Council may want to take in relationship to the existing ordinance. 3. Direct staff to amend ordinance to govern peddlers and transient merchants. 4. Choose not to regulate, leaving regulation to County. 5. Table. Issue 2. 1. Accept the information 2. Table for further consideration 3. Give a preliminary indication to the owner as to whether it is fruitful to undertake a rezoning or not . : iv f A El 1^'