Laserfiche WebLink
Case #4: <br /> <br />Proposed Ordinance to Establish Density Transition Standards for New <br />Residential Development <br /> <br />Hoisington Koegler Consultant Gordon stated that the City Council conducted a public hearing <br />and reviewed the proposed ordinance on October 24, 2000. Some of the Councilmembers <br />expressed concern with exempting development proposals that required a rezoning from <br />commercial/industrial to residential from the density transitioning requirements. The City <br />Attorney advised that there had been significant changes to the draft ordinance since the last <br />public hearing by the Planning Commission. He stated that, although the City Council <br />conducted a public hearing that evening, Section 9.03.05 of the City Code requires another <br />public hearing to be conducted specifically by the Planning Commission. It would not be <br />appropriate for the City Council to introduce the ordinance until the Planning Commission <br />conducted another public hearing and made a formal recommendation. City Council directed <br />staff to place the draft ordinance on the November 6, 2000 Planning Commission agenda. City <br />staff scheduled a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for the regular meeting of the <br />Planning Commission on November 6, 2000. The Commission received a written comment <br />fi'om Ordn Thompson Homes requesting that the proposal to exempt development proposals that <br />require a rezoning from commercial/industrial to residential be retained in the ordinance. City <br />staff also referenced a telephone conversation with former Planning Commissioner Ben Deemer, <br />in which he suggested that the language exempting parcels that rezone from <br />commercial/industrial to residential be retained. However, the rezoning would be conditioned on <br />the fact that the most restrictive screening and setback standards, current zoning district versus <br />the proposed zoning district, will be applied to the development proposal for the subject <br />property. On November 6, 2000, the Commission also discussed Subdivision 4 (Traffic <br />Generation Analysis) and authorized staff to modify the language as necessary to clarify the <br />intent of the requirement as follows: a) new development has to largely drain to a collector or <br />arterial road; b) limit traffic impact on adjacent existing neighborhoods to no more than that <br />which would have been realized if the newly developing property was at the same density level <br />as the existing neighborhood; c) the new development proposal has to deflect traffic from <br />existing developed neighborhoods. The Planning Commission moved to recommend that the <br />City Council adopt the density transition ordinance. Chairperson Nixt commented that he still <br />had some reservations with exempting parcels that rezone from commercial/industrial to <br />residential, but in the interest of implementing the Charter Amendment he voted in favor of the <br />motion. Staff requested that they reserve the right to further refine the ordinance text prior to <br />final adoption. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if it is possible to introduce the ordinance and still make <br />changes. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that changes can be made, but major changes would require <br />another public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly inquired if adding additional wording regarding the maintenance of <br />landscaping would be considered a major change. <br /> <br />City Council/November 14, 2000 <br /> Page 12 of 19 <br /> <br /> <br />