Agenda Packets - 1983/05/16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO TO: Planniml Cunnui:;:;iou FROM: En(ji.necring/Planni.n(.I 'Technician =I� : DATE: Aliri). I1, 1713 SUBJECT; SUPPLEME PAL CUi4Nl{N'1'S TU 9'1111, Now) Hmsll MOTEL PROPOSAL. (SEE ORIGIN*wl, PLANNING REPORT, COPY ATTACHED) Some questions camp uP at Lhc la:;t I'Linninq Commis:;ion mooting regarding the above proposal which staff would like to clarify. The first concerned the issue of the lot in cluo:;L•ion being part of a designated P.U,D. in the Comprelions ivo Plan. Staff has contacted Attorney Meyers on this item and it is his opinion that the P.U.D. classification in the Comprehensive Plan is it tool for the City to encourage developers to plan their rnti.re property at once as opposed to a piecemeal type of planning. Even though the City has designated the area as Highway Commercial/Industrial P.U.D. in its Comprehensive Plan, it is the zoning that determines what the use will be and developers may still plan and/or develop their properties on a lot by lot basis. The CiLy, at this point, would be hard pressed to require all property owners to plan the use of their properties at one time. This would apply to all of the PinceresL (Heim) properties in addition to the Programmed Land Properties. We would be able, because of the subdivision process, require the owners of. Programmed Land to state the future use of Lite east one -hall' of Chu lot which is currently (ice being subdivided. The property is zoned commorci.al, so the future use of the property may be stated as being commLrcial. So, it is Mr. Meyers' opinion that this lot is not part of a total P.U.U. area (it is not zoned P.U.D.) even though the Comprehensive Plan states it should be, and thus we cannot require the properly owners to designate use and a plan for the entire area at this time unless the Planning Commission can convince the owners to do so. The second item was regarding the responsibility for the skimmer structure which is presently located on the north side of Program Avenue. Since the City will be requiring the area to be easemented, the City will assume responsibility for the structure unless it is written in the development agreement and agreed upon that the developer/ owner will take responsibility of it. It is recommended that in the development agreement, the 'standard seven year bond be posted for the maintenance of the structure. During this seven year period, the developer/owner will be reponsible for the structure. Following this period, the City could assume responsibility for it. A third item which was brought up at the last meeting was as it relates to setbacks between the motel building and the adjacent non -conforming single family home. Chapter 40.05, Subdivision A of the Municipal Code states that the minimum setbacks as stated in Subdivision C of the same Code section applies to zoning districts, not land use. The zoning district in L•his area is B-3, Highway Commercial and thus set- backs as they relate to B-3 zones would apply to all lots within that