CC_Minutes_2015_0323 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 23, 2015 Page 20 Councilmember Etten opined that it might make sense to make some adjustments in subareas 6 and 7, but expressed his concern in limiting all commercial uses near Langton Lake and subarea 5 along Fairview Avenue for an apartment build- ing, suggesting that be moved to subarea 2 further away from the neighborhood. Councilmember Etten opined there may be some areas better suited for housing, but expressed his concern in limiting things near Langton Lake, since some uses may prove a positive connection for housing developments. Councilmember Et- ten noted that, at one time, there had been talk of not allowing commercial uses on the south side of Langton Lake, and now with discussions leaning toward lim- iting it in other areas, he was even more concerned. Councilmember McGehee agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe and Coun- cilmember Etten, opining that she was not a proponent of blanket zoning for an entire subarea without clearly defining acceptable uses in commercial areas. Councilmember McGehee admitted that her definition of CMU was very different than what had been implemented and she'd reviewed the list of uses in that zoning district, causing her to be very hesitant to apply blanket zoning or definitions in any of the subareas right now. Given the number of places these discussions tak- en to-date with this development area, Councilmember McGehee asked that the process go back to the actual intent for the area, noting varying goals from a sec- ond CenterPointe type development to a Maple Grove concept, neither of which had been achieved. Councilmember McGehee stated she was not interested in another patchwork development project, and expressed her hopes that a brown- fields consultant would be able to help with that, opining that she didn't see any advantages for anyone in using a piecemeal approach. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bilotta confirmed that when Cen- terPointe had developed it had been done as a Planned Unit Development(PUD). Similar to his colleagues, Councilmember Willmus agreed that he was reluctant to take a brush in zoning the area pretending to know how the overall area was spe- cifically going to develop and make those judgments from dais. However, Coun- cilmember Willmus stated he would like to reconsider PUD's as a tool providing the City Council to retain some control over uses they preferred and those not pre- ferred, and the ability to encourage and market some of the community's pre- ferred aesthetics. Mayor Roe asked for staffs feedback on the possibility of leaving the zoning as CMU, but allowing some uses only through a PUD for more specificity. Mayor Roe noted that the current challenge with CMU zoning was it allowed many uses without more clearly defining or limiting some of the uses. Mr. Bilotta stated that there were a number of permitted uses in the current CMU zoning and table of uses, creating situations where the City Council did not see an application if permitted; and suggested that process and the table of uses be re-