HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/86Present: Co.m~lissioners YJithl,7, Stevens, Polci!, !(aiser, Conzemius,
?~derso:l~ Voelker, au'id Chairn~hn Si.lmcek
!Iem~ers X)sent: Ccr,~nissioner P, euter
Staff Present: Planning Director l!arnening auld ,~!i~P~ Director grossmal
,% correction was macb on the last ,.?tragraph of the rainute3
under tile aijour~.~ent ~}roceedings to rea:l a~s follows: "!4orion
was P, ade b.y Ca~'!~issioner Folch, seconded b,f Cc~llissioner ]{aider
to adjourn. The Plantains Coh~ission adjourned] at 10:05 P.L"
C~-~nissioner Stevens noved, second,~] by C(~'~issioner Kaiser to
approve tile minutes as corrc~ted. 8 ayes; oRpsed 0.
[i.~;. '3ross~}a'~ reviewed with the Oa;~uissioners a ]raft pro?esai of
a ]possible ~le~l(~nent to ]>e ~da to tile zoning ordin~ce to create
a C-5 zone which would affect the d~,~teal area. %lie a~n~l~ent
would provide for more deve!oDilenh flexibility hy allowing
encoui-agiag ~nse {aid mix~ resi~nhi{~ ~ld c~l~ercial uses:
the D~,~nte,m. %an~ral ita,~ which w}re discussc~ l~rtainet to
}.~rking, ilOil-COllfOFPaing US2S~ ~rlsities. C~ilissioner Kaiser
suggestc~ that urJer S~f~.}division 3a the word "adjacent" should
=..~ defin{~ more clearly. C~m~]issioner Voetker expressed a ~n~rn
wit'u the preluded ]:~r}~ing :~]d Llini,~e;l lot size sad building size
criteria. Con, ms rare also ex;oress~ in reference to obstruction
of sight lines to the river if large develo}.Iaents ~re allowed
take place. Grossma] expiain~ that a final ordiua~ce a:~nd~ent
shoulct ~>a ce%2ah~ie with the findings aid recoim,en.]ations of a
Dee%town "i~ter Plen" which will ~ prei~red in the ca,~ing ;~nths
for the H.R.A. Gross. tan also suggesh~'~ that meetings ,.~ith affected
pro?}rty e.tlers ~ held to gain their in'nut on the pressed ordinance
aneniuenk. The Pi~mning Co~;nission will be eilcouraged to ]~rticipate
in these :reekings. No further action ',~a~%: taken.
Ir. Srosi?,am reviev}ed with tho Co~-a,',issio~ue,,:s a <]raft of a possible
zonin9 ordinance a~mn6~ent ~flich wou!~] estd}iish a Leth~[
3ed a~d Breakfast facilities could ',>e inc!uied as a oer~itted use
in the Pn2 zoning distridcs. Concerns ?fnicl~ ,sere brotlght forward
i,~rtainad to ~cup~]cy ra~]uire~ents, his torical status, minimu n
lot and building sizes. P~n Thorsen, ov,~er of the Thom~o~ Bed
eld Breakfast estJoiis[~ent, was present to prJ~ide insights and
discuss netters ~mrtaining to O~ ~d breakfast facilities.
Co~.lissioneus also ~iscussed the co%)atd}ility of bed ~d
ests~}lisim~nts within shaul~r{] single or k~.~o f~aily resilential
It was the Con~issione~s feeling that l~d eld breS{fast facilities
would be co, sAltib!e hi resiJential are~ if the prefer restrictions
~mre }laced on them ~d that they wou].i }~ much ii~e co.%?atible within
single f~;~iiy o~ t~e faz~ily resP~ntial aree~ then are sm~l ae. rtn}~nt
buildings or service ~e!atod uses. It was also recetnized that bed
a~d brea~{f,P~3t uses would ~)?ear to ,~met the intent of the ~-2 zone.
DEC?~ER 23,
1985
PRO-
~g2PI~i2
:~ter further discussion '~' .~- - ' _ .o±~n,
to recoi.~end that = ~
~n~: following zoning ordinance a~a91%l~ant to
the R-2 Zoning 0istrict =-~ ~-'~ ;.-
: ~mu~.,rd~ 1~ consider~:
Section 10.12 Subdivision 2
(1) 'Phc facility lust be part of a for. naiiy designated local,
state or nation~ historical structure.
(2) Ten units r.%lxilltla.
(3) Provision of parking at a ratio of 1 }arking slklce for each unit.
(4) That ~he facility has a state license' {hotel & food)
(5) That the facility .mst be o~.mer or manager occupied.
(r.,) jl-~at the facility' ha?e a minimtm~ size of 4,000 gross sg.ft.
Planning Director Harmening presenead to the Cor.~issioners for
their revis~.; a site plaun and other relatel inforh~,tion for a
4 .91ex .~ro~sed to })o construct~ on Lot 3, 3iock 1, 7~ispering
;ieadows. Hike Willians,contractor, wa,$ in attends%ce. ~.~e site
pill review .;as conduchel pursuant to Section 10.24 of the
zoning ordinance. .~ter discussion Fo!ch move], seconde3 by
Ditty, to r~oa%nei~ %3proval o[ tile site }lan s~oject to additional
infornmtion iA~ing provided on lighting arrange:rents eed subject
to a }~rfomtktlce bond or cash escrow beLng provided, if ra~Nirel,
pursu~mk to Section 10.24 of tile Zonin~ Ordin~lce. Upn vote taken
Co-~ais3ioners Ditty, Stevens, Polch, K~.iser, ~ederson, aid Chairm~
Simacek ~ted ~l favor of the 2etlon t~nd Cu~%nissioner Conz~aius and
Voelker voted e~ainst the ~r~gtion whereul~n the :lotion ~as decia~et
duly p~s ed.
Planning Director HaE-~ning infor,md the Co~m~ission that the City
Council had t{fol~ action on the Schu~acher Realty ~Tillic~m: 1st
Pd~. resorting r~!uest from Ag. to R-3 PP~D ~d ro~est for
preliminary plat approval until ;~?.tters ~rtaining to the l~rk
dedication location a~d other d~tails ar5 worked out. ?like
liiiia~a~, representing Sch~aacher Pea!ay, was in attends~lce to
presenu to th~ Col?~.lission a n?,e iaz~out for the Droi~scvi deve!o[~
~mnt which ws~ gener~iy in lrule ~/ihh recom~nc~tions made by
the Nahur~ Rese]rces Coa~aittee and Planner Tom Loucks. These
changes include] enlarging ~he -w:rk to 2.8 acres amd re!o~ting
it to the southeast corner of h~e siae which in turn eiiminata~]
27 townhouse units ~nd two duplex unit3 in that area. %I2e changes
also included the e~pansion of the mnlti-f~aily housing from 90 to
120 units !o~ted in the northwest eortion of ~he site. Also, the
duplex m'lits pro[rased to ~ l~ah~ in ~leo Court were ch~lged ~o
single f~iiy units. Conver3ely the sLagle family units io~ted
along the n~.~ prof~sed Ui!ltos ])rive ~esh were changed ko duplex units
to serve ~ a tr~lsition ~tween the auiti-fenily i~nsing units and
the single fa~nily units locatel on the es~3tern ?art of the zite. The
pro'~s.,~ reorganization of the site pie{% result'z~ in 177 units to ~
located on 31.33 acres. ~.N:e bred{dolnl of the pro:}Dsal is a~ follows:
S' ,7]~ ' ~ ,. . I~
..ln~_~ Family - 23 unrts, ~ }~=xeo-_ , ~7og~lhouf;es--18, ~2%trtr~ants-1On,
6~ld a ~ acre church site. ' '~
Planning Director [{ar~ening notc~ that due to the c~l~]geg as
proi?oseu a ptfolic hearing would '->3 re~luir_~d to ]De ne!d to allow
co:~i~a~t on the proposal. ~]a~-q~ening also indicated that additional
information is reqDiret] from the developer to allow staff
Nint Har~.%%q question~i the devetol~ent ~ro~)osal as he felt a
certain ~nount of confusion had been cre~t~]. Jartmam also
expressed concern with the ~)ark location. Ne:~nbers of the Co,[mission
discussed the new pro~sed ~inrk location and its relationshin to
future ?arks.
~.~ter further discussion, Fo!ch ,~mved, ~ ·
~econded by
scheiule a puo!~c hearing zor l~ua~f 27, 19~6 at 7:30 ~.m. for
~n= rezon~ng r~uest ~7d prelL~inary plat review re~]est as made
by Sch~macher P~alty. 5~]is ~tion w~ subject to Sch~macher
~.rov~umg ali ra!uir~
- , zn~on:~on Dy Janua~, 21, 19~,o. [3pon
vote taken CG~m]issionerg
Voeiker vot~J in favor of said ~Dtion; Co~m~issioner Ditty votu~]
~g~lnou said n~tion and Ca~issioner Conzemius ~stained whereuT~n
the ~tion was ]eclar~d ~proved.
~cx~..t~om.. ?oich, second~l by ~' -' ~.'
~a,z,e~ to adjourn. 8 ~'v .......
,ue:~, O ~:~fes. The Planning Co,~-nlSSlOn
adjourned at 9:30
ADJOURNMENT
1 I 1