HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/1999 TENTATIVE AGENDA
MINNESOTA JUNE 22, 1999
SHAKOPEE,
ADJ.REG.SESSION - Tuesday-
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Jon Brekke presiding
1] Roll Call at 4:30 p.m.
2] Approval of Agenda
3] Approval of Consent Business- (All items noted by an* are anticipated to be routine. After a
discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to
remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be
considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent
agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.)
*4] Final Plat of Shakopee Valley Marketplace-Res.No. 5165
5] Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Improvement Project
6] Other Business
7] 5:00 p.m. - Work Session with Planning Commission
A. Action Strategies from the May 26, 1999, Joint Meeting
8] Adjourn to Tuesday, June 29, 1999, at 7:00 p.m.
4
CONSENT
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Final Plat of Shakopee Valley Marketplace
MEETING DATE: June 22, 1999
INTRODUCTION:
At the June 15, 1999 meeting the Council tabled this matter to allow time to revise the
resolution and/or agreement regarding maintenance of the trail on Sarazin Street. The
applicant requested that the trail be located on the east side of Sarazin, rather than the
west side, because of concerns the applicant has about pedestrian safety and liability.
The City Engineer agreed with the relocation of the trail to the east side of Sarazin Street.
The applicant has agreed to install the trail, or pay the cost thereof, and to take care of
normal maintenance(i.e. snow and ice removal). The applicant is apparently satisfied
that their maintenance of the trail doesn't open them to additional liability.
A copy of the revised resolution is attached for the Council's consideration and action.
According to the City Attorney, aerequirement regarding reement for the plat subsequently maintenance can be
incorporated into the associationg
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and pass Resolution No. 5165 approving the final plat of Shakopee Valley
Marketplace.
RESOLUTION NO.5165
A RESOLUTION OF PLAT THE CITY SHAKOPEE MARKETPLACE
PEE,
MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL
WHEREAS, Oppidan Investment Co., applicant and Eugene Hauer, Sharron Bernhagen, and Eileen Kerkow, owners of said property have filed an application for Final Plat approval with the City of
Shakopee;and
WHEREAS, according to the 1999 tax records of the Scott County Treasurers Office, the
property upon which the request is being made is identified by the property identification numbers and is
legally described as follows:
PID No. 27-907040-0: The South 8 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7,
Township 115,Range 22,Scott County,Minnesota
PID No. 27407013-0: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township
115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying southerly of the plat of Minnesota Department of
Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 70-5; Except the South 8.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 7
PID No. 27-918019-0: The North 8.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,Minnesota
PID No. 27-918007-0: The South 330.00 feet of the West 450.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 115,Range 22, Scott County,Minnesota
PID No. 27418008-0: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18,
rth 8.00 feet of said
and also
exTownshipcept
h 115,oRange 22, Scott thenty,West 450.00 feet of said Noinnesota, Except the orth Half of the Northeast hQualrter of the
except the South 330.00 feetof
Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 115,Range 22, Scott County,Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat of
Shakopee Valley Marketplace on June 3, 1999,and has recommended its approval.
WHEREAS,all anotices of t the hearing ehavelic been given an opportunity to e heard thereon.earing for the Preliminary Plat were duly sent and posted
and all persons appearing g
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,as follows:
That the Final Plat of Shakopee Valley Marketplace is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat:
a) Approval of title by the City Attorney.
b) Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B
improvements.
c) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
d) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
e) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
fj Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems,and
construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the
Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee.
g) The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water
Charges,Trunk Storm Water Ponding Charges,Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Charges,security for the public improvements,engineering review
fees,and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule.
h) The developer shall be responsible for the construction and any
associated costs of a bituminous trail along the east side of Sarazin
Street north of 17th Avenue. The developer shall also be responsible
for snow and ice removal,and other normal maintenance of said trail
that may be required under the Shakopee City Code.
i) Easements shall be added to the plat,for all public improvements,and
as required by City Code and a 10 foot trail easement on south
boundary of the plat.
j) Signed petition for Plan B improvements.
k) Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of$3880.per
acre. These fees may be deferred to the issuance of building permit for
each lot. If the fees are deferred to the issuance of the building permit,
fees shall be charged according to the fee schedule in place at the time
of building permit issuance.
1) The shared access/driveways between all lots shall be approved subject
to a property owners association or a maintenance agreement for the
access/driveway being executed designating the party responsible for
maintaining the access/driveway,and granting that party the right to
assess all properties benefiting from the access/driveway for the cost of
maintenance. The agreement also shall grant the City the right to enter
and maintain the access/driveway when it deems necessary to maintain
safe access, and to charge the cost of such maintenance back to the
property owners.
in) Cross easements shall be required to ensure access is provided to Lot 1,
Block 1 due to the fact that it is not provided access from the public
roadways that it fronts.
n) The Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved by the City Engineer
and Shakopee Public Utilities prior to the commencement of construction.
o) Grading/Erosion Control/Storm Sewer plans and specifications must conform to City
requirements and are subject to approval by City Engineer.
p) The developer shall pay existing levied special assessments.
The plat and associated drawings shall be revised to include the recommendations that
have been presented by the City's traffic consultant;
r) Additional right-of-way dedications shall be added to the final plat drawings,as
recommended by the City's traffic consultant and the City Engineer,in order to
accommodate the re-design of CSAH 17 and 17th Avenue;and
s) An agreement shall be reached regarding participation of the costs for the improvements
required for CSAH 17 and 17th Avenue.
t) Signatures of all the property owners shall be provided on the final plat application.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota, held
the day of , 1999.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Improvement Project
Date: June 10, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Council is to discuss the bidding results for the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium
Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND
Bids were opened on June 10 for the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Improvement Project.
The bid specifications include a base bid and four bid alternates. The base bid includes a
concession stand, restrooms and pressbox. Bid Alternate 1 includes a sun roof over the
grandstand; Bid Alternate 2 includes storage rooms under the grandstand;Bid Alternate 3
includes landscaping and Bid Alternate 4 includes dugout additions.
BID RESULTS
Greystone Construction was the only bidder. Greystone Construction's bid was recorded
as follows:
Base bid (Concession, Restrooms, Pressbox) $326,313
Alternative 1 (Sunroof over grandstand) $ 77,500
Alternative 2 (Storage under grandstand) $ 73,600
Alternative 3 (Landscaping) $ 20,000
Alternative 4 (Dugout additions) $ 28,000
Total $525,413
FUNDING
In prior discussions, Council indicated using TIF Funds for this project. There is $380,000
of TIF funds from the older pooled TIF districts. These funds must be allocated or under
contract for this project by no later than December 31, 1999 or used for other qaulifying
projects. The total bid package of$525,413 exceeds the available TIF budget for this
project of$380,000. Unless other funding sources are used, only the base bid (concession
stand, restrooms and pressbox)would be pursued.
Some Council members have stated they prefer to have the project"phased" over a period
of years. If this is Council's wishes, then it should proceed with the construction of the
first phase which includes the concession stand, restrooms and pressbox(base bid of
$326,313.00 + $15,000 for architectural services). The remaining balance of the TIF
Budget for this project will be $38,687.00.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Proceed with the construction of the concession stand, restrooms, pressbox, sunroof
over the grandstand, storage area under the grandstand, dugout additions and
landscaping for a total of$525,413.00.
2. Proceed with the construction of the concession stand, restrooms, pressbox, sunroof
over the grandstand, storage area under the grandstand and dugout additions for a
total of$505,413.00.
3. Proceed with the construction of
area ftheunder0
concession
over the grandstand and storagethe grandstand for a total of$477,413 .
4. Proceed with the construction of the concession stand, restrooms, pressbox, sunroof
over the grandstand for a total of$403,813.00.
5. Proceed with the construction of the concession stand, restrooms, pressbox, and
storage area under the grandstand for a total of$399,913.00.
6. Proceed with the construction of the concession stand, restrooms and pressbox for a
base bid total of$326,313.00.
7. Re-bid the project.
8. Do nothing.
PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION
Alternative# 3. Rationale:
Alternative No. 3 nearly completes the project except for the landscaping and additions to
the dugouts. With alternatives 1,2,4,5, and 6, portions of the project will be"phased" in
over a period of years. Keep in mind, the cost of"phasing" this project may be more
expensive than if it were done all at once. It is not likely material and labor costs to go
down. Therefore, with each subsequent phase, the project gets more costly and more staff
time is required to administer the project (bidding process and construction).
If Council agrees with staff's recommendation, Park Reserve Funds could be used to fund
the difference of$477,413 in project costs and $380,000 of available TIF Funds. Staff
recommends allocating $97,413 from Park Reserve Funds to complete the project. The
extension of the dugouts and landscaping ($48,000) are aspects of the project that could
be privately funded, and I would encourage the baseball community to consider that
option.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has not met to discuss this bid because their regular
monthly meeting is June 28.
ACTION REQUESTED
Discuss the scope of the project and whether or not you wish to fund it.
Mark J. McQuillan
Parks and Recreation Director
•
SECTION 00310— BID PROPOSAL FORM
I
BID PROPOSAL FORM
FOR
IMPROVEMENTS FOR
JOE SCHLEPER STADIUM
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
1
City Clerk
II City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
To All Bidders:
' In accordance with the "Notice to Bidders" 'ng wthlthecPla sr eand SpechficatonsStadium
file
Improvements contract as described by and in conformance
at the Shakopee Community Center, the undersigned hereby certifies that an examination has been
made of the site & plans and specifications of the work included in this bid package and hs eby
y
proposes to furnish all machinery, equipment, tools, labor, materials and other necessary g
services for the provision and installation of all work in the manner specified.
Base Bid -Concessions building, press box, and site work.
LUMP SUM TOTAL
DOLLARS 3z2_,_Sa3�O)
ALTERNATE NO. 1 —SUN ROOF OVER GRANDSTANDS
' •Soo-a �
ADD LUMP SUM TOTAL DOLLARS 1E11
ALTERNATE NO. 2—STORAGE ROOMS UNDER GRANDSTANDS
ADD LUMP SUM TOTAL
DOLLARS IL•'Y3beO•'O
• ALTERNATE NO. 3—LANDSCAPING coo 0=0
ADD
LUMP SUM TOTAL DOLLARS L$ Alseliepo ) ee,
ALTERNATE NO. 4—DUGOUT ADDITIONS
ADD LUMP SUM TOTAL
DOLLARS
�
BID PROPOSAL FORM 00310- 1
•
w
declaresand
that he has carefully examined all Bidding and Contract Documets has
The biddereherebyallythis bid
that of
i he has personally inspected the actual location of the work understands that inss'ign ng supply,
satisfied himself as to all the quantities isunderstanding regarding same.
1 proposal he waives all right to plead any
The within
ice,
undersigned agrees that, upon acceptance of this bid, he will, bonds,nndays of such
hrt
executeguarantees
the necessary contract forms and that he/she will prove
and other
s required by the Contract Documents. The undersigned agrees tat he/she
ce
e
items
and complete the contract in accordance with the specifications. The bidder agrees
to do, perform and complete all the work in accordance with the Contract Documents and accept in
compensation therefore the amount of the Base Bid as noted on this proposal.
i Accompauyin9
full subject to forfeiture
this Proposal is the Bid Security required, the same being
_
b the undersigned who accepts the provisions of the Instructions to Bidders
in event of default y
regarding disposition of the Bid Security. to reject any and all
in this Proposal, it is understood that the right is reserved by the City
In submittg not be withdrawn fora period of 30 days from the opening
bids and it is agreed that this bid may
ithereof.
aware
of and have
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDA: I hereby acknowledge that I have received and am fully
incorporated the requirements of the following addenda in this Bid (initial each):
aware of have rP
f 7
Signed:
Firm Name: e-€ yg' -
,,u ac. ow oiviM,N
I Phone Number:
,ZLZ
M
1 END OF SECTION
II
I
id
AI00310-2
BID PROPOSAL FORM
II
Youth Recreation Investments
CITY
1995-96 $6 million Community Center
ice arena—gym—gymnastic room—wrestling room—3 youth ball fields
1998- The City invested$45,000 to fence three ball fields at Muenchow Fields.
1998 - The City constructed an outdoor hockey rink in Lions Park at a cost of$12,000.
1998 - The City invested over$20,000 in staff time and resources to construct two new
youth softball fields south of the Sr. High Football Field
1999 - This fall, a 4th youth ball field will be added to Muenchow Fields.,
2000 - Proposed in the CIP is$55,000 for an irrigation system for four ball fields at
Muenchow Fields.
2000 - Proposed in the CIP is$500,000 to acquire ten acres of land adjacent to Sun Path
School for youth athletic complex.
2000- Proposed in the CIP is funding to resurface the tennis courts at Stans Park.
Tahpah Park was privately funded by donations from the Shakopee Jaycees, Shakopee
Men's,Women's and Co-Rec Softball Program and other service and business
organizations. The softball fields were designed for adult use. However,the high school
softball teams and summer fast-pitch girls softball teams use the fields on Monday nights
and for tournaments.
The construction of the existing Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium was made possible
through fund raising efforts of the former Stadium&Lighting Committee(1985) and the
town baseball team. The users of the baseball stadium include adult baseball teams,high
school baseball teams, Legion and Mickey Mantle.
To build another facility identical to Tahpah Park today would cost about $2-3 million
(not including land costs).
The City maintains the fields at Tahpah Park, Muenchow Fields,Riverview Park and
school fields. (The City maintains the infields on school property and the school district
mows the grass.)
SCHOOL DISTRICT
The City is allowed free access to all school district gymnasiums and ball fields,which
are used primarily by youth athletic programs.
7. q•
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Draft of Action Strategies from the May 26, 1999 Joint Meeting
MEETING DATE: June 22, 1999
INTRODUCTION:
At the May 26, 1999 meeting direction was provided to staff regarding the general action
strategies that were identified. Following are further developed proposals and/or
language for the Council and Commission's review and further reaction and input.
Transitions to and from single family zoning districts/Physical Buffering:
These items are described in more detail in Julie Klima's memorandum.
Commercial Districts:
Staff is continuing to work on the development of additional district regulations, but a
full draft was not complete and available for this meeting.
More PUD Control:
The PUD issue is addressed in Julie Klima's memo, a copy of which is attached for the
Council's and Commission's review. Accompanying this memorandum is a proposed
revision to City Code Sec. 11.85 regarding the process for granting site plan approval. In
addition, the"Conditional Use" sections of each of the zoning districts would be re-titled,
as well as Secs. 11.86 to 11.88 pertaining to conditional use standards for each of the use
categories. Finally, Sec. 11.84. Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Subd. 1.A. would
need to be revised or deleted.
Commission/Board Streamlining:
At the last session staff proposed combining the functions of the Planning Commission
and Board of Adjustments and Appeals into a single Planning Commission. Staff
suggested combining the bodies could result in a number of procedural efficiencies.
Staff's analysis of the advantages and disadvantages (which you may have already
received) is provided below.
Pros Cons
The Board *One, rather than two agendas *Less opportunity to
serve as chair of a board
*Easier to schedule related items *If site plan review is also
together on an evening's agenda implemented, board is advisory
instead of the initial decider of
some items
*Potentially easier to keep discussions
focused between types of applications
Staff *Agendas and reports simplified *None
*Easier to schedule items that are related
Citizens *Less confusion about what board hears*None
which items
*Scheduling of related items together
should lessen the time commitment
for persons wishing to testify
City Council *If site plan review is also implemented, *None
Council given review which it now only
has on appeal
Staff's further review of both state statute and the City Code suggests that no formal
action in the form of City Code amendments is required to accomplish this streamlining.
Minnesota statute gives the Council the authority to create a"planning agency," which
may take the form of a planning commission. (Minn.Stat. 462.354, 1991) That same
section requires any city having a zoning ordinance to establish a"board of adjustments
and appeals," and further provides that a planning commission may serve as the board of
adjustments and appeals. (Minn.Stat. 462.354, Subd. 2, 1991)
Shakopee City Code Sec. 2.52 establishes a planning commission. City Code Sec. 2.53
provides that"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be the Planning
Commission." A copy of these sections is attached for the Council's and Commission's
information. The City Code does not in any way require that there be 2 separate boards
that convene at separate times.
Staff's belief is that all that may be required that is agreement to institute the change, and
perhaps motions by the respective bodies to implement the change.
DRAFT
SEC. 11.85. SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Subd. 1. - • •- - - - . • -. - • - - • . Site Plan Approval. In granting site
plan approval ' i ' ,the City Council shall
consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health,safety and general welfare of the
occupants of surrounding lands and the City as a whole. The City Council
and-Appeals shall not grant site plan approval without making the following findings.
(Subd. 1, Items A. through E., and Subd. 2.Application, would remain unchanged)
Subd. 3. Public Hearing.
A. Generally. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for a
public hearing before the Planning Commission. Not
less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published in the official
newspaper, and sent by mail to the applicant and to the owners of all properties located
wholly or partially 350 feet, as reflected in the records of the Scott County Recorder.
(Subd. 3.B. Shoreland and Floodplain Overlay Zones, would remain unchanged)
Subd.4. Decision.
A. Generally. Following the hearing - - • --• '• - - • -= ••-• •- •. ••by-the-applicant the Planning Commission shall make
and report a -' • -• •= • - - - - - - - = e: • recommendation to the
City Council on the site plan. Site Plan Approval may be
approved granted by the affirmative vote of a simple majority of those-present City
Council. If the Beard denies a site plan, it-the Council shall make
a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. All
Council.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Shakopee City Council
Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
DATE: June 22, 1999
INTRODUCTION
As part of a previous worksession, the Council and Commission identified issues, that if
implemented, would require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The areas of concerns
were identified as follows:
1. requiring buffering by residential uses when abutting higher density or conflicting land
uses and/or high capacity roadways;
2. allowing mixed uses (such as residential/commercial) as part of the Planned Unit
Development(PUD) overlay zone and providing more specific guidelines for mixed
use residential developments;
3. clarifying the differences between single family detached and single family attached
residential structures;
4. addition and/or revision of commercial zoning districts to distinguish between
neighborhood/community/regional commercial uses;
5. addition of minimum open space requirements for residential developments which are
allowed to develop with densities within the medium and high ranges.
DISCUSSION
In an attempt to address the concerns identified above, staff is proposing the following
changes to the City Code. Language which is underlined is proposed for addition,
language which is ckthrough is proposed for deletion.
ISSUE NO. 1
Section 11.60, (Performance Standards) Subd. 7 (Screening) H. Residential properties
which adjoin existing or proposed residential densities higher than themselves,
commercial, industrial or abut collector and/or arterial roadway shall provide berming at a
minimum height of 4 feet with overstory deciduous and coniferous landscaping units. This
requirement shall also apply to residential properties which are separated only by a
roadway(s) from the previously noted uses.
ISSUE NO. 2
Section 11.50 (Planned Unit Development District) of the City Code does currently allow
for the development of mixed use PUD's. In order to make that point more clear to the
development community, staff is proposing that the individual applicable zoning districts
be amended to include in its list of Permitted Uses the following item: Single and Mixed
Use Developments which comply with Section 11.50 and have received approval as such
from the City Council. It is recommended that the proposed language be incorporated
into the following zoning districts:
• Low Density Residential (R-1A)Zone;
• Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone;
• Old Shakopee Residential (R-1C)Zone;
• Medium Density Residential (R2)Zone;
• High Density Residential (R3)Zone;
• Highway Business (B 1)Zone;
• Office Business (B2)Zone;
• Central Business (B3)Zone;
• Light Industrial (I1)Zone;
• Heavy Industrial (I2)Zone;
• Major Recreation(MR)Zone; and
• Business Park (BP) Zone.
With regard to more specific guidelines for residential mixed use developments, staff is
requesting that the Council/Commission provide further direction on the desired
approach(es).
ISSUE NO. 3
Both the Council and Commission have dedicated significant discussion to single family
and multiple family development. In an effort to more clearly define those uses and utilize
practices consistent with the Metropolitan Council, staff is proposing that definitions for
Single Family Detached Dwelling and Single Family Attached Dwelling be provided in the
Zoning Ordinance, as follows.
Section 11.02 (Definitions)
Single Family Attached Dwelling - a dwelling sharing one or more common walls with an
adjoining dwelling unit, which is designed for and occupied exclusively by one family.
Single Family Detached Dwelling- a dwelling unit which has open space on all sides and is
designed for and occupied exclusively by one family.
Multiple Family Dwelling - a dwelling unit which shares one or more common walls, as
well, as common ceiling and/or floor with adjoining dwelling unit(s), which is designed for
and occupied exclusively by one family.
If these definitions were to be adopted as written, twin home and townhouse units would
be classified as single family attached dwelling units. Structures such as apartment
buildings would be classified as multiple family dwellings. The individual zoning districts
would then need to be amended to allow for the revised language. Staff would suggest
that Single Family detached dwelling units be allowed as a permitted use in the following
zones:
• Agricultural Preservation(AG)Zone;
• Rural Residential(RR)Zone;
• Low Density Residential (R-1A)Zone;
• Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone;
• Old Shakopee Residential (R-1C)Zone;
• Medium Density Residential (R2)Zone; and
• High Density Residential (R3)Zone.
Staff would further suggest that single family attached units be allowed as permitted uses
as follows:
• Structures containing two attached dwelling units in the Old Shakopee Residential (R-
1C)Zone, Medium Density Residential (R2)Zone; and High Density Residential (R3)
Zone.
• Structures containing two to four attached dwelling units in the Medium Density
Residential (R2)Zone; and High Density Residential (R3)Zone.
• Structures containing more than four attached dwelling units in the High Density
Residential (R3)Zone.
Multiple family dwellings could then be allowed as a permitted use in the High Density
Residential (R3)Zone.
ISSUE NO. 4
The evaluation of the current commercial zoning districts and requested revisions will
require additional staff time and will be brought back to the Council and Commission at a
later date.
ISSUE NO. S
Staff would recommend adding minimum open space requirements to the Design
Standards of the Medium Density(R2) and High Density (R3)Zones. The Council and
Commission should discuss the specific amount of open space it wishes to require. As a
point of reference, the PUD process requires 15% of the gross project area to be
designated for open space purposes. The Council and Commission should also discuss if
it is preferable to allow one requirement for both zones or if a higher open space
requirement should be utilized for higher density projects.
ACTION REQUESTED
Discuss and provide staff with direction on the preferred alternatives.
[(Ai
ulie Klima
Planner II
is\commdev\boaa-pc\1999\0622wksp\txtamnts.doc