04-27-1988 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

building or away from the 'residential uses and toward Rice Street. This aspect of the plan will be discussed more in the PUD Section of this report. In summary, staff feels that a rezoning can be approved and a development processed which will result in minimal, if any, negative impacts on the adjoining development. However, rezoning decisions represent policy for the community. As such, no technical direction recommendation is made in this report. The remainder of this analysis will focus on the proposals compliance with the City's technical performance standards. It is based upon an assumption that the rezoning would be approved. If the City chooses to deny the rezoning, any site plan and PUD amendment would need to be substantially altered from the current proposal and therefore the following sections of the report would not apply. Planned Unit Development If the concept of the rezoning is acceptable, the development requires an amendment to the existing Rice at C Planned Unit Development by adding the additional parcel to the Center. The PUD encompasses two other applications, those of the subdivision on which a portion of the proposed building would sit, and the side yard set back variance on the north. The subdivision also includes a concurrent process to legally attach the parcel to the existing development. This subdivision /lot combination process is basically an administrative requirement of the rezoning and PUD process. The variance request, however, presents other concerns. Under the PUD process, interior setback requirements may be negotiated. However, perimeter setbacks must be observed, subject to conditions which warrant variance consideration. The applicant is requesting a reduction in side yard setback adjoining a residential area from 40 to 20 feet. The Zoning Ordinance lists a number of criteria to qualify a request for variance, approval, all of which relate to a unique circumstance or physical hardship situation. In this case, no such justification is seen. The 40 foot setback for residential property should be observed as required. Most other proposed design features of the project appear to meet ordinance requirements. Parking supply as shown exceeds City standards, and service capacity should function well. As mentioned in previous sections, the proposed layout serves to buffer packing and service areas from the residential area. As shown on the attached site line illustration (Exhibit E), even without additional fencing and landscaping, the closest houses will have little or no Page 25