10-04-16 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

never accepted by the full Council, the bill must be accepted at the Monday, October 1 Otn meeting, then advertised by the amended title, and heard for public hearing at a later meeting due to the Title 5 notice requirement. Councilmember White asked what would happen if the Council did not meet the ninety (90) day timeframe in regard to zoning matters. Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand responded that the petition would be defeated according to state law if Council failed to take action within the ninety (90) day period. She also mentioned the Council is well within its ninety (90) day period since December 20th is the deadline date. Committee Chair Davis asked the petitioner and public if anyone had questions. Mr. David Matthews, petitioner at 215 E. Colfax Ave., asked Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand to clarify the issue. She responded that the Council needs adequate time to give proper notice of the substitute bill, but there's nothing the petitioner did incorrectly in regard to filing. Committee Chair Davis transitioned to the presenters from the Area Plan Commission. Keith Chapman, Area Plan Commission- 1 Ph Floor County -City Building, explained that the petitioner is requesting to rezone the property from Central Business District (CBD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). He mentioned staff had some concern about shadowing that the one hundred and seventy -five (175) foot proposed building would cast onto adjacent properties. He went on to show the site plan as proposed by the petitioner, Mr. Matthews. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission- 11 th Floor County -City Building, expressed that the development standards as a PUD district were established by the petitioner. The most controversial issue has become the one hundred and seventy -five (175) foot proposed building. The uses are consistent with the Central Business District as it adds provisions for maker space and other minor modifications. Most staff recommendations focus on the PUD. Mrs. Smith offered a background of the PUD ordinance, stating that the intent of the PUD district has been used by developers to essentially write their own development standards and evade the process of variance requests. Where other zoning classifications can be requested they should almost always be utilized before petitioning for a PUD. PUDs have a very specific intent for creative developments that do not fit traditional zoning classifications. Mrs. Smith went on to state that there are five (5) items to be addressed by the petitioner which weren't addressed by the developer in the petition. Overall, the staff feels as if the proposal is not an appropriate use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district, but the APC was unable to reach a unanimous decision and forwarded a "no recommendation" certification to Council. FA