PL MINUTES 02151977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• taken from the City tax rolls which are published each May and since both had moved into their homes since last May the notice had been sent to the owner of record. The Staff memorandum of February 11th containing an administrative review of the proposal as it conforms with the City zoning ordinance was noted and John Daubney, Attorney for Mr. Hedlund, presented the request and introduced Carl Dale of Design Planning Consultants , 4826 Chicago Avenue South, who the attorney said would present the plan and a schematic design for the residential and commercial development of the 5 acre tract of land owned by Mr. Hedlund. Mr. Carl opened by his presentation by telling the Board he had been hired by Mr. Hed- lund "not to promote the proposal , but to give his objective view as a planner" . He discussed his Planning Report of February 9 , 1977 which gave his recommendations for a development which he said would satisfy the developer's interests at the same time it would protect the residential neighborhood. His site design of February 3 , 1977 was intended to be a part of Mr. Hedlund 's application form but con- tained only conceptual drawings of the three commercial buildings which would be a part of the proposal . The planner said the first of the two basic plans which he had presented at the Board 's January 18th meeting had been eliminated following the meeting with residents at a poorly attended meeting January 27th. That plan had proposed commer- cial development for the entire tract to which the residents had voiced their opposition. Mr. Dale said that as a result of that meet- ing and suggestions by the City Staff, the three buildings proposed in the second plan had been turned around to allow more parking spaces and a frontage driveway and the elimination of a roadway to the rear which the planner felt allowed more buffer area to screen the resi- dences on Penrod Lane. At that point and later, in answering a question from a resident, Mr. Dale said he felt that at least 20 feet of buffer should be provided and, though 10 feet of this would be from the 120 foot dept residential lots, with the landscaping of the entire area to be done by the "commercial who would create the need" . The slides he then showed depicted the examples of permitted and prohibited architectural styles which he had included in his plan and Mr. Dale said Mr. Hedlund was willing to be bound by this listing. He also restated the permitted and excluded uses which he envisioned for this proposal under the classifications listed in the City zoning ordin- ance. The Planner said he believes the existing City zoning ordinance does not provide the necessary districts for the development of Mr. Hedlund's land. He felt the "B" classification is too restrictive, and the "C" is too liberal, allowing many uses which would not be desirable for this particular development. The PUD was not set up in a manner which would allow a planner to make a viable proposal because of the low percentage (20%) of commercial it allows. Mr. Dale°s site design had considered the curb cut in front of the existing structure as an al- ternative access for emergency vehicles and Mr. Daubney presented draw- ings which depicted three more suggested methods of handling traffic under this proposal. The attorney said the Hedlund tract would be re- platted so that single family dwellings could be built on the nine lots (2)