06/26/1990 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. /-Mr. Gorris advised that the Planning Review Conunittee met on June 21st and is in the process of winding.down. Any information from this evening's ? discussion on the Mixed Use district will be forwarded to Mr. Hill. After a final review of the completed zoning codes, they will be forwarded to Council and the Commission. VII. NEW BUSINESS: No items. VIII. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion of revised Mixed Use District restrictions: Chairman Thomas explained that Mr. Hill's original proposal for Mixed Use had three categories: "A", "B", and "C". His revision had eliminated "C" and combined it with "B". Assistant Law Director Dubelko had previou.sly questioned the elimination of "C". He explained that originally "B" had required a minimun of 35 acres and was primarily designated for coirnnunity living, in particular, Christ The King Community. Mr. Hill had changed "B" to "C" and by eliminating "C" they could be eliminating something that might be necessary in the future. Mr. Thomas read Mr. Iiill's proposal for Mixed Use "C". Mr. Gorris clarified that "A" and "B" were basically both 10 acres parcels, and "C" «as for 35 acres. "A" is the only classification permitting retail, all three permit offices, multiple dwellings, elderly housi.ng and cluster developments. "C" is the only one that will permit hospitals, schools, etc. Mr. Thomas explained that he did not believe it would be feasible to provicle for 35 acres of land since most of the remaining property on the west end of town consists of smaller parcels. Mr. Gorris is questioning if what the Commission is trying to accomplish on the west side can be done under the Mixed Use District, since it is usually designated for larger parcels. Mr._ Dubelko agreed that Mixed Use is usually for large parcels of land under a comon ownership. Members agreed that they are trying to provide for the orderly development of the west side of town by restricting certain types of retail development. Mr. Morgan stated that perhaps they should be looking at a modified type of retail zoning. Mr. Dubelko agreed that this would be possible, however if they are going to provide.for elderly housing, cluster housing, etc., it would be a type of Niixed Use, but how can you provide for orderly development when the property is tmder different ownership. Mr. Thomas explained that his objective was to control traffic, provide some relief for the city on the western portion of town as well as to encourage elderly and cluster housing to provide for more residential areas. He agreed that a more restrictive retail zoning would be more acceptable to both the residents and the awners of this property. He is hoping that by rezoning to Mixed Use, it would force owners to combine parcels, rather than developing "bowling alley" type lots. He questioned if if a minimtml lot size could be established in the new retail use without "grandfathering-iri" the existing lots. Mr. Dubelko stated that this would be against the State Code, retroactively applying zoning changes to lawfully conforming lots is prohibited. Mr. Thomas believes that by rezoning to Mixed Use would encourage' owners to assembly property. Mr. Betts pointed out that any changes could result in litigation. Mr. Dubelko stated that, if the property is rezoned, there should be uses in the zoning so that property can be developed as it is presently subdivided. He does not believe that owners can be compelled to combine lots. Mr. Morgan pointed out that owners 3