06/27/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 21 e. Outlots A and D, minus the area of land necessary to replace existing park land lost with extension of Arlo Lane, are dedicated in partial satisfaction of park dedication requirements. The balance of required parkland dedication will be provided in the form of cash fee in lieu of land as prescribed by the Subdivision Ordinance. f. Outlots B and C are conveyed to the appropriate landowners for access and a buffer strip, respectively. and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden). Mr. Zych arrived at 9:50 p.m. The developer stated if this did stay parkland, he would plant additional pine trees between the Judd property and the park. AMENDMENT to the first motion as seconded and approved to recommend a 28 -foot street width within the subdivision as opposed to the 32 -foot width. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden) -1 (Zych). H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan ompanies UD, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 9:51 p Staff presented the application by explaining,taff had Inc. on a proposed retail development locate Interchange. The Planning and Zoning Board r of 2000 and opened the public he _ n Feb initial hearing. Staff stated the main issues Zoning Board at the cone Town Center vision. orking with Ryan Companies, US ast quadrant of Lake Drive /I -35 W. e concept plan for the site in December 13, 2001 with periodic updates since the d discussed by the City Council and Planning and the site layout and design and the departure from the Staff indicated the direction prided through the concept process was to incorporate special pedestrian- oriented design features, as well as some special architectural elements into the proposal with the goal being an "above average shopping center ". Staff stated the submittal that was reviewed in February 2001 had been modified; this review was based on plan submittals stamped received by the. City on May 18, 2001. Staff indicated many outstanding issues remain related to the site. • Staff stated the property was currently zoned SC, Shopping Center District. This designation anticipated the development of a single center generally under one ownership. There was no provision in the SC ordinance to allow zero lot line setbacks for parking or lots without frontage as proposed.