Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,<t <br />, ~ <br /> <br />'}" <br />'. <br /> <br />Agenda Section: VI I 1-1 <br /> <br />CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON <br /> <br />Report Number: 9 7 - 0 8 8 <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION <br /> <br />Report Date: ADril 22. 1997 <br /> <br />ITEM DESCRIPTION <br /> <br />R-141/LP-315 <br />SILVER HILL DEVELOPMENT <br /> <br />App~ <br /> <br />DEPT. HEAD'S APPROVAL: <br /> <br />Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development <br /> <br /> <br />MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: <br /> <br />No comments to supplement this report <br /> <br />Comments attached <br /> <br />EXPLANA TION/SUMMARY (attach supplemental sheets as necessary) <br />To consider an amended request for a rezoning from R-l to R-2 and site plan review for 29 townhomes proposed for three <br />existing single family home sites. ~ ' ~ <br />~ ab"'JtA(..~~ (tAr "2.. <br />RECOMMENDATION r <br />As always, the City Council still has the option of either approving or denying the proposed application. However, staff <br />would concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the proposed rezoning and developme-Qt would be an <br />appropriate use of the subject site. The following are sample motions-fer either a motion of approval or denial. <br /> <br />First, the City Council could APPROVE THE REZONING R-141 BY A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING, HOLD A FIRST AND <br />SECOND READING, AND ORDER THE PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW BRIGHTON ZONING <br />ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY IN NEW BRIGHTON FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2, <br />Two FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; AND MAKE A SEP ARA TE MOTION TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION LP-315 WITH <br />CONDITIONS, TIIOSE BEING: <br /> <br />1. APPROVAL OF GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RCWD; AND <br />2. PROVISION OF A LEITER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100% OF THE COST TO INSTALL CURBING, PAVING, <br />AND LANDSCAPING. <br />3. THOSE OAK TREES WillCH ARE TO REMAIN AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIllS SITE, SHOULD BE PROTECTED <br />FROM ROOT COMPACTION BY HA VING ~IR DRJP LINJ:S FENC-t:,D OfF f!UOH, TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. <br />~. ~~ ev1l...CN~~ -to R7'f1av\'- \iv,",Vl--~ (.)Ytv\ +u ....\"c.\..4I<UJ q~\ClU2(/\-\ ~'h'-er, <br />Seco~;lthe City Council could DENY THE REZONING R-141 AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION LP~31~, BASED ON: <br /> <br />1. THE REZONING REQUEST BEING INCONSISTENT WITII THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S LAND USE DESIGNATION OF <br />SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE SUBJECT SITE; <br />2. THE REZONING OF THE SUBJECT SITE TO R-2 ALLOWS FOR A MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE THAN <br />THE R-l DISTRICT WOULD AFFORD. <br /> <br />~/ ~.tN' <br />- ''-\}~''\..~ ~~ ~~ry ,/ <br />\0~ -~ \CAJ't :~'r <br />~ - ~ ~ <br />~ .~T}o. ,~\r . <br />vJ'\ \.\~ <br /> <br /> <br />G:ICDI-97 -CCIREPORTSIERNYlR-141 B.WPD <br /> <br />;,,....;~-:;.:\:..- ,... <br />