Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
. <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 /> Motion bv Council Member Nelson, seconded by Council Member Broussard <br /> Vickers to deny the Schlavin variance request Nelson, Sweeney, Travis and <br /> Broussard Vickers - ave, Ma Wilharber - nay. Motion carried <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Ground Development — Pheasant Marsh PUD <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 I I <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 /> Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded bv Council Member Nelson to denx <br /> a�proval of the submitted Pheasant Marsh PUD as recommended bv Planning and <br /> Zoning Commission. All in favor. Motion carried unanimousl� <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 /> Page 5 of 9 <br />