Laserfiche WebLink
Public Hearing of 9/19/2006 <br />Ordinance No. 2006-135 <br />arterial street so that you could not develop a traditional subdivision and then have that <br />subdivision sprinkled with office or semi-public or public uses. <br />Richard Jent, who owns vacant land at the end of Bradley Road, asked to be enlightened <br />as to what was trying to be done. His understanding is he is going to have to build a <br />residential office or house or something in this area. <br />Planning Director Wenger answered that the legislation will create a district. There is <br />additional legislation on first reading that indicates the parcels to be rezoned. That piece <br />of legislation on first reading will actually rezone Mr. Jent's property. This legislation <br />provides the regulations for how he can develop it in the future. It is residential office. <br />Basically, the permitted uses are residential, public or office in nature. But there are <br />descriptions of what those are, and there is some flexibility built in for other similar uses <br />that are determined to be appropriate in the district. <br />Mr. Jent asked for further explanation as to what brought this on. He is going to be <br />completely surrounded by industrial buildings. Does he have to build a house in the <br />center when surrounded by industrial buildings? When he bought the land, he was told it <br />was zoned light industrial. <br />Councilman Gareau answered that the legislation does not require Mr. Jent to do that. <br />The legislation skews away from industrial and provides for a home professional office <br />or office use. In one section (c), there are residential uses, public or semi-public uses and <br />office use which more delineates what type of an office character would be appropriate. <br />It's not retail, but it does provide some other use. What brought this on is the current <br />litigation that the city is currently involved in by somebody who wished put in 53 cluster <br />units in the middle of the neighborhood. So, while Mr. Jent is suggesting that it would be <br />difficult to construct a home in an industrial park, somebody wanted to put in 53 units in <br />the middle of what is currently mostly light industrial, probably even skewed toward <br />office. The Planning Director put together a group of individuals interested in this issue <br />to try to brainstorm and come up with a way to resolve the conflict. That's where it came <br />from. Also, it does go back to the recommendations of the city master plan from two <br />years ago. It doesn't specifically tie into this litigation, but at the same time, it is a <br />consideration as to what we were going to do. He recognized an inherent problem there <br />which will only grow more complicated in the future. This is a way to try to address it at <br />least at some level. <br />Law Director Dubelko reiterated what Councilman Gareau said-that it wasn't solely the <br />litigation that triggered this, but it was the last two master plans which have called for <br />zoning changes in that area to move into a residential direction. He thinks this district <br />and the next piece of legislation which would provide for rezoning is an attempt to <br />provide for a move in that direction with more residential in the area. But at the same <br />time, it will preserve' the right of property owners to have some development of a light <br />industriaUoffice nature. <br /> <br />3 <br />