|
horses on property that includes 2.5 acres of owned property and four acres of ledge land :baS'ed
<br /> on the Findings of Fact #
<br /> .; :;,: ::~ti3::
<br />
<br /> Motion Can-led. Voting Yes: Acting Chairperson Johnson, Cmmnissioners wiv. oda;.R~eve, and
<br /> Watson. Voting No: None. ,
<br />
<br /> Case #5: Reconsider Request for Preliminary Plat and Site Plan'~?,'al of
<br /> Hills; Case of Homestead Multi-Family Developm~nt
<br />
<br /> Commumty Development D~rector Frohk stated that M~k~,SohnddeY~o~, Homestead Multi-
<br />
<br /> townhome development on the prope~y located south of~l:f3r~ Avenue ~. and Bill's Supem~e
<br /> and east of St. Francis Blvd. (State Highway ff47). ~?~:}~"~ember 5, '{~f;?-!~,nning Commission
<br /> conducted a public heating and reco~ended Coun~:¢:app~6~al ~f th~es~mg~ina~ plat and site
<br /> plan for Orchard Hills. ~e plat did not implement'~he de~.tr~fi;n,,, ;~i. rements of
<br /> Chager Chapter 14. However, the Subject Prope~ would h}~:~'~n exempted ~om density
<br /> transitioning in the proposed ordinance that would establish that ~;6~ement in~Ihe Zoning and
<br /> ....... ~:i?!'::e~ . ~ :~.. .
<br /> Sub&wsmn Chapter of C~W Code, whmh or&nance the Planmng Cmmissma~ fO~arded to C~ty
<br /> Council for adoption. On December?i:~;?the,~ity Council did not ad0:*~5:~h~(;~si~ transition
<br /> ordinance. ~en the Orchard Hiii~:~fie~'~i~¢~'~at:~roposal was presenf~d:~{; City Council on
<br /> Janua~ 9, the City Attorney adqi~ t~:~City C~'~n:~}~{8'~refer ~he Orchi~:hills cases back to the
<br /> Planmng Commission to document d!s~ussmn of 3h~,~:<Ch~.?r~qmrement as ~t pe~mns to
<br /> Orchard Hills and reasons for proceed~':'~ith th~':.~. ~:~gly, City Staff has dra~ed
<br /> findings of fact to document that the C~:::.:~g~'require~:~(for aensi~ transitioning was
<br /> addressed. The findings, of hct documeEt::i~at all versions of the dra~ density transmon
<br /> ordinance proEos'~.i0"~xe~t.. .::: ..;. .,.., :.pr°pe~ies tha~0~;e,,:~,;: zoned, for multi-family residential prior to the
<br /> Cha~er amen&nent, provide-the option forXp&soni~:~owning land adjacent to a development
<br /> pr4ect to,-~'hiO~ the density'.~sition requireN~'~{"S~5'~?~hey feel it is not necessa,, and reco~ize
<br /> that the':configuratmn of w:parce! may make ~comphance w~th dens~W transmonmg ~mpractmal.
<br /> ,/.L: ', . ? ', : ,,:545:<'~:5~~. .......
<br />
<br /> '. ' '~ /;{.':, ;:' .. .~ '"4% · · ' d
<br /> %e O~chard Hill,s proppO:w~S, zgo,ed_for~.~Jtl..:mmfly pnor to the Cheer amendment, a ~acent
<br /> land owners glv<e':not&j~atedt° {fia??8'fi~i~d development, and the shape of the prope~y m~es
<br /> compliance witg: e) ghaner require~ fora 1,000 foot density transition pl~
<br />~:C'7'~{~b'bSsible. Ms. Frblik'~oted that she did discuss the issue with the City Attorney prior to the
<br />.?f~)'~' ';~g{i'h~'7~kd he indicai~'d?ihat if:~e Pla~ng Co~ission fo~ards the with positive finding of
<br /> "~,'4.~ ';~. . '~':' "'";'~; Q ;i,;' . . . .
<br /> fact probably advising the mW:council to table action until the final outcome of the density
<br /> . . ~: ~,~ . /4'., ~:- '
<br /> transition or&n~ce ~s ~own:
<br />
<br /> Steve Slettner,~Tec Des~, stated that the C~ty Council had a couple of concerns re~ar&ng the
<br /> plat. One concern had to do with outlot A ~nd ma~ng sure that no access would be ganted from
<br /> "%i~:}?j'5;T.H. ~47, w~i~ is not the intent of Bills Supere~e. ~e developer is being trapped by the
<br /> '~ Cha~er ~endment and delay ~n the adoption of the denmty transition or&nance. ~e denslW
<br /> % : % . ~4'(,- '7:
<br /> t'rans~tioh ordinance discussion has always allowed an exemption, for existing zoned multi-family
<br /> zohi~g~?" The plat was sent back to the Pla~ing Co~ission in order for the Charier
<br /> ~endment ~mphcatmns to be addressed. ~e other issue had to do with concerns of residents
<br />
<br />Planning Commission/February 6, 2001
<br /> Page 9 of 11
<br />
<br />-257-
<br />
<br />
<br />
|