Laserfiche WebLink
<br />changes to the sign ordinance. They also requested he bring tax information to the <br />meeting as he had indicated at the meeting he was being taxed commercially for that part <br />of the structure being used for his business. <br /> <br />Motion bv Council Member Nelson. seconded bv Council Member Broussard <br />Vickers to deny the Schlavin variance reauest. Nelson. Sweeney. Travis and <br />Broussard Vickers - ave. Mavor Wilharber - nay. Motion carried. <br /> <br />Council Member Travis questioned whether the Planning and Zoning Commission <br />intended to change the sign ordinance to allow for a larger sign for businesses located in a <br />mostly commercial area or on a county road. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated <br />that the Planning and Zoning Commission is revisiting the issue at their workshop and <br />had invited Mr. Schlavin to help them with the decision making process. It was the <br />consensus of the Committee that provisions needed to be made to allow larger signs for <br />home-based businesses located in a mainly commercial district or on a county road. <br /> <br />Mayor Wilharber questioned whether there are other home-based businesses in the <br />community being taxed commercially. Mr. March indicated he did not have the <br />information readily accessible. <br /> <br />Mayor Wilharber stated that home-based businesses take away from the business tax base <br />for the City. Mr. March stated that the City tried to address the issue of providing for <br />home-based businesses while not taking away tax base from the City during the rewriting <br />of Ordinance #4. Mr. March also stated a need for constraints for the home-based <br />businesses while still allowing them to operate within the City. <br /> <br />Ground Develooment - Pheasant Marsh PUD <br /> <br />Mr. Terry Hannah, Ground Development, submitted information to the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission at the November 14, 2000 meeting. The proposed PUD requests an <br />eighty-eight (88) lot subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny <br />approval of the PUD based on the fact that the plat did not meet the minimum <br />requirements for a PUD. The primary reason for denial was the plan did not contain a <br />minimum of 20% common open space. The developer had shown a 21.7% open space <br />area but same consisted of rear yards and other private areas. The developer has since <br />resubmitted a revised plat and request for PUD. The revised plat is reported to contain <br />seventy-eight (78) lots and allow for the required common open space. Staff and the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the PUD request be denied. <br /> <br />Motion bv Council Member Sweeney. seconded bv Council Member Nelson to deny <br />approval of the submitted Pheasant Marsh pun as recommended by Planninl! and <br />Zoninl! Commission. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Council Member Travis questioned whether the PUD in the Council packet was the same <br />as reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission or if it was the revised plan. Mr. <br />March indicated it was the same plat as reviewed by the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Page 5 of9 <br />