04-27-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Flpril 27, 1988 Boosalis CUP (Cont.) Fahey pointed out that the depth of the pr~oposed r~ezoning is the nar•rowest of any commer~cial zoning depth along Rice Str•eet. Blesener~ did not feel the depth proposed was unr•easonable. Fahey agreed and pointed out that the depth should not be made so shallow that the pr•oper•ty would be wor~thless. Fahey stated that he could find no str~ong objection to commercial development along Rice Street pr•ovided that the buffer• to the nor•th was r~easonable. Scalze pointed out past Council actions rezoning along Rice Str•eet to a depth of 129 feet. Scalze pointed out that these actions have been successful and pr~oves to her• that a depth of 129 feet of B-3 zoning along Rice Str~eet can wor~k. Tim Townsley, Iona Lane, stated that he objected to commercial zoning behind his pr~oper~ty. Townsley stated that due to the gr•ade of the pr•oper•ty, the shopping center• would be ver~y visible. Townsley also r•epor•ted that stakes for• the shoppi ng center• ar•e i n pl ace and a 40 foot buffer zone was unacceptable. Townsley noted that on the nor•th the apar•tments wer~e r•equired to have a 100 foot buffer zone plus 35 feet of building setback. Townsley noted that the par•king at the fr•ont of the shopping center• would only be a few feet fr•om his pr•oper•ty. Qoosalis pointed out the fence pr•oposed along the nor~th for~ scr•eening purposes and the fact that the shopping center• would be 2 to 3 feet below present gr•ades. Townsley commented on the noise that the shopping center• will gener~ate. Townsley felt the pr•oposal would devalue his property and pointed out that when he bought his pr•oper•ty it was sur•r~ounded by R-1 zoning. Fahey asked if a lar•ger buffer• zone would be acceptable to Townsley. Townsley stated that he did not want to have B-3 zoning behind his pr•oper~ty. Townsley also pointed out that the existing tr~ees to the south of him wer•e not substantial and did not provide much scr~eening. Townsley commented that the existing shopping center• to the south is ver•y visible fr~om his pr•operty. Boosalis pointed out that the Townsley home is towar•ds the fr~ont of his pr•oper•ty and that Townsley had a substantial backyar•d ar•ea. Scalze commented that she would not want to see a shopping center~ located behind her~ home and she, too, has R-1 pr•oper~ty located behind her•. Scalze stated that she would be in favor• of B-3 zoning to a depth of 129 feet, but not beyond that point. Fahey suggested that the shopping center~ could be designed with an L-shape that would pull it fur•ther~ away fr~om the Townsley pr•oper~ty and pr~ovide additional scr•eening and buffer ar~ea. Page -8-