10-28-13-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Discussion Residential Buffers One of the major issues raised bythe Planning Commission and City Council in their review of PC 77-027 was the provision of an adequate buffer between the proposed commercial office use and existing residential areas.MSLIdedicated the 7.5 acres of parklandspecifically to act as a bufferfor the residential neighborhoods located south andeast of the property.This parcel along with an Outlot located in the Hunters Park development formed the Crepeau Nature Preserve. In addition to the park dedication, a 100 foot wide public easementon the property’s eastern edge was granted to the City for pedestrian and bicycle purposes. This strip of land, whichruns south from the end of Pine Tree Drive to the Crepeau Nature Preserve, also acts as a buffer between the Hunters Park development and the Country Financial property. The intent for the4.5acre parcel in the southwest cornerof the site was toeitherplat the property for residential development or to keep it in its natural state. On the preliminary site plan, MSLI showed four residential parcels around a cul-de-sac at the end of Dunlap Street. Thelayout of the parcels and street was meant to ensure that Dunlap Street would not be extended north through the property.To date, this property has not been platted and due to the presence of numerous wetlands, the site may be largely undevelopable. Conditions of Approval The main concerns raised by the Planning Commission in their review of PC 77-027pertained to residential buffer areas and landscaping. The City Council approved the rezoning of the property to R-B, with the exception that an easterly border, 100 feet in width, remainR-1.Through negotiations between the City and MSLI, in the end this area was zoned R-Band the company put in place a permanent public easement along the eastern border. No additional conditions related to the development of the site were approved by the Councilin 1977.One concern brought up during the public hearing for the case was that MSLI could develop the site further. It was noted by a Planning Commissioner that the property owner would need to apply fora Special Use Permit Amendment in order to expand on the site. This requirement still applies today; the current property owner would need to go through the applicable city review process, either a Planned Unit Development or Site Plan Review.