07-13-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council July 13, 1988 Announcements (Cont.) The Mayor announced that ther~e will be a meeting of the Economic Development Committee on Wednesday, July 27th, at 7:30 A.M. Boosalis The Mayor~ opened the public hear•ing on the r•equest made by Sher~man Rezoning Boosalis for~ PUD amendment by r~ezoning fr•om B-3, Gener•al Business, to Request R-1, Single Family Residential for a por•tion of his pr•oper•ty in the Rice Str•eet and County Road C ar•ea. The Mayor noted that the Council Agenda also had initiated r~ezoning consideration for• the back por•tions of Item No. 5 the B-3 pr•operties on County Road C adjacent to the Boosalis proper~ty to R-1. However•, upon the r•ecommendation of the City Planner~ and City Attor•ney the Planning Commission decided to take no action on the Council initiated por~tion of the r•ezoning. The Planning Commission did r•ecommend, however•, that the Boosalis proper~ty be rezoned to R-1. The City Planner reported that the developer, P1r. Qoosalis, is pur•chasing the pr•oper•ty from Dr~. Kr•inkie. However~, Dr•. Kr•inkie would pr~efer~ that the pr~oper~ty not be for~mally r•ezoned until the pur~chase is finalized. The Planner• suggested that r•ather• than pass the r~ezoning this evening, the Council consider• a resolution dir~ecting City staff to pr•epar•e a r•ezoning or•dinance which could be adopted at the time the Qoosalis PUD is finalized. Scalze pointed out that the r•emaining B-3 pr•oper•ties on County Road C would have to obser•ve setback requir~ements to r~esidential pr•oper~ty, which would make these parcels ver•y difficult to develop as B-3. Fahey asked why RB, Residential Business, zoning was not being consider•ed for• the pr•oper•ty. The Planner• pointed out that RB would allow two family dwellings, which would then be located dir•ectly acr•oss fr~om single-family development. The Planner• r•epor~ted that typically land use changes should occur• on r•ear• lot lines and not facing one another•. Scalze asked the r•eason for~ holding off on r•ezoning the other• B-3 pr~oper•ty on County Road C. The Planner~ r•epor•ted that he r•ecommended not r•ezoning these par•cels at this time until the question of Tax Incr•ement Financing is r~esolved and the level of assessments for• the r•oad impvovement is deter~mined. The Planner• pointed out that the r•ezoning ser•ves no pur~pose at this time until the Boosalis development is completed. Mr~. Kukk, 83 County Road C, stated that he was opposed to the r~ezoning pointing out that he uses his pr~oper~ty commer•cially and if the pr~oper•ty is r•ezoned he would abutt r•esidential pr~oper•ty, which will pose pr•oblems for~ his business. Kukk pointed out that ther•e would be no buffer• fr~om his commer•cial pr•oper~ty to the r•esidential. Kukk also felt that the Boosalis development and r•ezonings only benefited outside developer~s and not the exi sti ng pr~oper~ty owner•s i n the ar•ea. Mr•. Souchy, County Road C r~esident, asked if Boosalis would pay for• the road impr~ovement. Page -2-