pf_03277 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2 Brenda Himrich, 1082 Lovell Ave., noted the east side would be the front yard of her home. What type of lighting would be placed on the rear of the building? (downcast). She asked for details on the fence. (There is a State highway chain link fence on the south side. A fence on the east side would be up to 6 \12 feet in height, board-on-board wood fence.) She preferred having a fence and landscaping. She asked for details of the pathway along Lexington A venue. Deb Bloom explained the pathway plan and requirements of the developer to contribute to the fund. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Brenda Himrich noted there is an open well on the site that should be capped (Staff and developer will review). Could the pine tree be saved? Stew Thomley, neighbor adjacent to the proposal, expressed concern about through traffic from the business. Such through-traffic speeds excessively. It is now posted as private property with no through-traffic. The Day Care traffic is a problem (safety, speed, wear/tear on roads). Chair Klausing noted that customers to the business are more likely not to be there daily and would use Lexington A venue. Mr. Thomley said employees would learn the "shortcuts". Chair Klausing asked what condition should be placed on the development (Staff will review the site plan and entry designs). ')'"' --' The architect and owner explained curb channelization to reduce through traffic. The fence should match existing fence, and, should extend to the northeast comer to reduce hazards. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Member Wilke asked if the townhome access could be closed access to Lexington A venue. Thomas Paschke explained the history of the road. Chair Klausing asked if there was reason for curb cuts. Deb Bloom explained how the parking lot could be designed with entry access encouraging use of Lexington A venue. 32 There were no further comments. Chair Klausing closed the hearing. 33 34 Chair Klausing said the change to the Comprehensive Plan was a good change; it is a good use and would be a good neighbor. The City still retains the same balance of residential to commercial. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Motion: By resolution, Member Klausing moved, second by Member Cunningham, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change the designation for the .56-acre parcel from High Density Residential (HR) to Business (B). 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Motion: Member Klausing moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend approval of the rezoning from Single Family Residential District (R-I) to Business-Planned Unit Development (B-PUD) with an underlying (base) zoning of Limited Business District (B-1). Ayes: 5 Nays: 0