2008-02-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 27, 2008 Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 setbacks prescribed in the district in which the proposed “PD-R” development is located. e f. Common Open Space Requirements. Common open space for “PD-R” developments shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 5, “Supplementary Regulations,” Section 34-57.4 of this chapter. f g. Perimeter Buffer Requirements. (1) Where a “PD-R” development proposes residential development along the perimeter of the site, which is higher in density than that of an adjacent residentially zoned property, there shall be a minimum thirty (30) foot wide buffer area. The buffer area shall be kept free of buildings or structures and shall be landscaped or protected by natural features so that all higher-density residential buildings are effectively screened from the abutting lower-density residential property. (2) Where a “PD-R” development abuts a commercial or industrial use or district, there shall be a minimum thirty (30) foot wide buffer area. This buffer area shall be permanent and landscaped and/or otherwise provided with screening (i.e., sightproof fencing) so as to effectively screen the commercial or industrial use from the “PD-R” development. … 5. Planned Development-Mixed Use (PD-M). “PD-M” developments shall incorporate the regulations set forth in both subsections (c)(3) and (4) of this section dealing specifically with “PD-R” and “PD-C” developments. If an unresolved conflict between those regulations occurs (such as between common open space versus site coverage) the applicant shall set forth the reasons for such discrepancy and the proposed resolution. Any discrepancies between the two sets of regulations and the resolution thereof shall be set forth in the map amendment ordinance and/or the resolution approving the development. The resolution thereof shall be pursuant to staff recommendation or as set forth by the plan commission in the map amendment ordinance. (Ord. 6530 § 1 (part), 2005) The motion was seconded by Ms. Greening and passed by a vote of 6 to 0 with all members voting “yes.” Hearing: Land Clearance Redevelopment Authority Redevelopment Plans - 1) Olive & Midland Urban Renewal Area and 2) Olive & North and South Urban Renewal Project Area Mr. Walker gave an overview of the blighting analyses and redevelopment plans for Olive & Midland Boulevards and Olive Boulevard & North and South Road. Mr. Senturia moved that the Plan Commission has determined that the blighting analysis and redevelopment plan for Olive & Midland Boulevards are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update of 2005 and that the analysis and plan be recommended for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller and passed by a vote of 6 to 0. Q:\WPOFFICE\WPDATA\m-2008-02-27.plc.final.wpd