5-01-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON Regular Meeting – May 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Larry Baker, Bruce Howard, Karen Mann, Jim O’Brien, and Paul Zisla. Absent: Tom O’Keefe, and Norm Schiferl Also Present: Grant Fernelius, Community Development Director and Janice Gundlach, City Planner. Agenda Review: Agenda approved. Council Action: No Council announcements. Public Hearings: ZA2007-002 Zoning Code Amendment to Section 7-230 (8) (C) with Regard to Setback Standards for a Planned Unit Development. This is a City initiated request to amend Zoning Code Section 7-230 (8) (C) with regard to setback standards, adjacent to a public road, for a Planned Unit Development. This request is necessary in order for the current Brighton Village proposal to proceed. The proposed amendment deletes item C completely. The PUD ordinance, Section 7-230 (8), establishes minimum setbacks for any Planned Unit Development. Item A of this section requires a 30’ or height of building setback, whichever is greater, from the periphery boundaries of the proposed PUD. Item B of this section requires a 60’ or height of building setback, whichever is greater, from R-1 and R-2 zoned property. Lastly, item C requires a 60’ or height of building, whichever is greater, from a public street. Staff has determined that item C is not necessary as it is well above what is required under regular zoning for all of the city’s districts. Additionally, enough control exists in item A of Section 7-230 (8) pertaining to the periphery boundary setback (which is also often a public street). Item A also allows a decrease in the required setback when “pedestrian linkages to neighboring developments for residents, employees, or shoppers are provided along with an approved streetscape plan with enhanced landscaping.” One of the purposes of the PUD is to give the City latitude to approve something in exchange for some other public amenity being provided. The City Attorney has been consulted on this amendment and he agrees that deletion of item C does not remove the cities ability to require a greater setback when necessary and the authority to reduce it already exists. Zisla inquired if this would apply to all setbacks or just the front yard setback. Gundlach replied that it applies th to all setbacks adjacent to a public street. Ed Greacen, 1510 14 Avenue NW and a member of the Parks and Recreation Board inquired how this setback would affect the particular development plan for Brighton Village. Gundlach replied that Kraus Anderson has proposed setbacks that are less than sixty feet from a public street. In reviewing their PUD proposal and the specifics characteristics of the proposal sixty feet is excessive, when the underlying zoning would only require thirty feet. Greacen asked if staff could show where the sixty-foot setback would occur on the site plan and what they are proposing. Gundlach provided a site plan and showed that everything along the Frontage Road and Palmer Drive would have to meet a sixty-foot setback under the current PUD standards. Greacen inquired if it is possible to grant a variance for just this PUD development, rather than change the ordinance for all PUD’s. Gundlach replied that a variance is always an option, but after staff reviewed the PUD ordinance, the sixty-foot setback is not practical since there are no PUD’s in the City that meet that requirement and underlying zoning would require less. There is flexibility within the PUD I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2007\5-01-2007.docPage 1 of 8