Planning Commission Minutes 1995 02 28

Home Browse Search

Q. A. If the property remains RM/RL and the applicant comes forward with a PUD. would we at that point be able to grant some kind of relief in terms of the number units that could be placed. Yes. The RL zone district does permit, as a special review use, multi -family development. Paul Wood - Going back to the map archives - the 1990 and 1992 reflect the RM designation. If you extended Harper Street through to Garfield that is shown as part of the park in 92 and 93. The 1993 map showed that portion of Middle School Park south of the Harper Street right-of-way was no longer part of the park. After 93 it is consistent with the property exchange. Q. A. To Staff - What map is distributed to citizens when they come in for one. We usually have the most current map available. The current map was completed in December of 1993. Since that time that would have been the map distributed. Prior to that date it would have been the earlier version which may have incorrectly shown the park boundaries. Applicant's Summary - The applicant did not have a summary. Staff Summary and Recommendation - Staff has prepared Resolution # 1, Series 1995, which recommends of approval of the rezoning from RL and RM to RM residential medium density with the following condition: A minimum 25 foot building setback shall be required from the west property line. These required setbacks shall be landscaped and a six foot high solid fence constructed along the property line. Public Hearing Closed Commission Discussion/Motion Commissioner Lipton - Let me start by saying that I am somewhat flexible and amenable to a change in zoning for this property. I think the proposed RM zoning is not inconsistent with surrounding existing land uses. However, I have some concerns about how we go about doing that. I am concerned about the shape of the property, access to the property, drainage of the property, the impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as well as the impacts to the existing City Park. I feel very uncomfortable about taking an action that would permit someone by use of right to develop the property into something that may adversely impact someone else in the area. I think I would be willing to look at, at least for an action today, keeping the existing zoning and then allowing the applicant to come back with a PUD and try to work with the applicant to address all the concerns. I am amenable to slightly increasing the overall density. However, I also reserve a healthy skepticism as to what the ultimate density would turn out to be given some of the constraints on the development of the property. I am amenable to working with you and looking at the higher density. I am not so sure I could support this approach to doing it. This then would not result in a PUD that would come back to us. 6