01-23-17 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

develop in the south. Ms. Smith stated, After discussion at the Area Plan Commission,they relocated the drive to be outside of the fifty (50)foot residential buffer yard that would be required along the east property line. This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission with no recommendation. As part of a staff recommendation, we had suggested two (2) written commitments to the property owner, both of which they agreed to and,they said, they would carry forward to this meeting. The commitments being: to not have access onto Mayflower Road and an increase of landscape and buffering along Mayflower consistent to the original PUD that was provided. Committeemember Davis asked if Ms. Smith could summarize what happened with the vote at the Area Plan Commission. Ms. Smith responded, We require eight(8)votes to pass a motion. We had twelve (12)members present. The motion was nay, descended, with an unfavorable recommendation that failed seven- five (7/5). Five (5)voted to send it unfavorably, seven(7)people voted against that. Then a motion was made to send it favorably. That also failed, seven-five (7/5). It failed to gain the eighth(8th)vote needed, so then it came with no recommendation. Committeemember Broden asked, Was there any thought to table this and to revisit it again at the Commission? Ms. Smith responded, There was a question as to whether or not to table it. At that point,the motion had already been made and seconded, so the vote was taken on the motion. That's pretty much what happened. There was a discussion about how there are two (2) options after failing to carry either motion, where basically you try again and try to sway somebody to go with the eighth(8th)person, or to table it or send it with no recommendation. Committeemember Broden asked, With regard to the PUD and it expiring prior to the secondary approval—it didn't get to that stage, right? Ms. Smith responded, Right. Committeemember Broden asked, So, it does not revert to the previous zone? Ms. Smith responded, It does not revert. In 2005, when they came forward, they had five (5) years to present a secondary plan on at least one (1)phase of the property. If they don't do that, that plan expires. Now that we have kind of changed the PUD requirements and everything that goes with that, when they came back in to discuss rezoning back to a PUD again, the recommendation was that all the uses they were requesting fit with the LI, Light Industrial District. That's what they should be requesting. Committeemember Voorde asked, Could you show me where the two (2)recommendations you made would come into play? Ms. Smith responded, The portion here to the north that extends all the way to Mayflower—you can see the red line that comes out—it would allow for no access at that point. They would not 9