Laserfiche WebLink
.,, ~' <br />• Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission <br />August 29, 1985 <br />Page 8 <br />ordinance reads, it says that for every one foot of height <br />that~s over the top of the screening fence, the distance has <br />got to be increased 5 feet. Citizen input feels that this <br />C should be deleted. Staff recommended that Planning and Zoning <br />carefully consider the goals of the comprehensive plan for <br />screening versus the practical aspects of the application of <br />this section and make a decision therefrom. <br />Chairman Wilson entertained a motion to adopt recommendations <br />presented in 6-500, 6-600, 6/600 (B)5 (citizen comment that <br />indicated that the additional five foot set back required <br />behind the screening fence for every foot of height of stored <br />material above that fence should be deleted). Motion by Janet <br />Graves and Seconded by Mr. Johnston Motion carried with no <br />oggosition. <br />19) Section 8-200: <br />This section requests clarification on which rules apply to a <br />P.U.D. district and which rules apply to a P.U.D. development <br />• within a particular district. Both are allowed under the <br />zoning ordinance. <br />City Attorney John Armstrong said that we didn~t make a staff <br />recommendation on this section as the comment just basically <br />has clarification there. <br />20) Section 8-402 (8): <br />r Similar comment as above that needs to state the dwelling unit <br />per acre requirements for P.U.D. District. Assistant City <br />Attorney John Armstrong said there was no recommendation on <br />behalf of staff, this was just for verification. <br />21 ) ,S,gc i n 8-402 ( 10) <br />This section, citizen comment indicates that the requirement <br />that the planned unit development be in conformance with the <br />Comprehensive Plan be deleted. <br />Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong indicated that this part <br />of the ordinance must be kept. <br />• <br />