04-10-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1386 Additional Conrcnts and Planning Commission Recommendation - April 6, 1989 Page 6 of 9 Additional List of Exhibits - Exhibit K - Comprehensive Plan Section Exhibit L - Existing Zoning Map Exhibit M - PUD Ordinance Exhibit N - Planning Commission Minutes of 3/20/89 Council is advised to review the Planning Commission minutes of March 20, 1989 for more background on the discussion and the issues raised by both the applicant and Planning Commission members. The main thrust of the Planning Commission’s concern was that the principal intent of the Comprehensive Plan amendment would not be satisfied if we were to allow this property to be developed under a limited neighborhood type commercial zoning district (review Exhibit K). Members felt that it was unfortunate that the PRD ordinance had not been adopted as of this date, but clearly this was not an acceptable reason to forsake the intent of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Planning Commission hoped that there was a vehicle available to the applicant that would provide him the opportunity to file a formal application. In discussion surrounding the B-1 zoning district, the Planning Commission reviewed their concern over the lack of control of future uses. The current proposal regarding a garden center use was most acceptable. Their concern was 20 years into the future if the B-1 zoning district was approved, this would mean no ability to review any new use that was listed as a permitted use. Some of the uses listed under the B 1 would not be acceptable to the Planning Commission. Applicant should also be advised that B-1 zoning uses are not permitted uses within the B-6 zone. Applicant noted at the meeting that what did it matter if B-1 or B-6 zoning was approved for the site since B-1 uses were listed as approved uses under the B-6 zoning. Please review Exhibit I, the B-6 zoning district standards. Five specific uses have been listed as permitted uses. It was the Planning Commission’s intent that any use outside of these uses would have to come under a PUD rezoning. Standards set forth under the B-6 zoning with a 2 acre minimum lot area are appropriate for the five uses set forth under the permitted uses. This is why the uses under the B-1 would not be »jpropriate. The very nature of the applicant ’s multiple use under a garden center classification suggests also a need for a PUD type ot development.