04-08-10 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2010 o Fence can be no higher than six feet, and outdoor storage cannot exceed the height of the fence; o Property owner to maintain both sides of the fence. Motion seconded by Knudsen. Motion carried 7 - 0. REZONING The City Planner indicated that at the time Poolside brought the FROM B-3 proposal to the City for the rezoning of their property from B-3 to TO PUD - PUD, staff discussed taking a broader look at the area. That discussion AREA focused on the area bounded by Little Canada Road/the Railroad tracks/ BOUNDED BY County Road C as well as the union hall property at the corner of Little GENERALLY Canada Road and Jackson Street. The Planner noted that the property BY LITTLE immediately to the west is already zoned PUD. Another issue of CANADA ROAD/ consideration is that the City's Comprehensive Plan talks about COUNTY ROAD mixed use development, and the Planner noted that this particular area C/RAILROAD would lend itself to a redevelopment consisting of both commercial and residential uses. Knudsen asked if the residential uses in this area are prohibited from making significant improvements. The City Planner replied that under the B-3 Zoning, the residential homes are considered to be legally non- conforming. These homes could be replaced or repaired. An expansion of the homes would be allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the B-3 District. The City Planner noted that the PUD District would require property owners to obtain PUD Permits for various property improvements, which is essentially the same as the CUP process. The Plamrer also indicated that under the PUD District, the homes would technically no longer be non-conforming. The City Planner noted that his report dated April 1, 2010 outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the rezoning to PUD. The Planner noted that under the PUD zoning, there is more flexibility in development or redevelopment of these properties. The Commission acknowledged the letter from Tom Cossack in opposition to the rezoning at this time. Knudsen noted that the City could just have the Poolside property as PUD, but the decision was to look at broadening the PUD area given the uniqueness of the area as well as the Comp Plan references to mixed use development. The City Planner indicated that the Comp Plan talks about the potential for commercial or mixed use development in this area. The -11-