Laserfiche WebLink
M1NUT1/S <br />PLANNING COMMLSSLON <br />MAY 9, 2002 <br />Motion seconded by Duray. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />The Commission reviewed the PUD Permit, specifically the Planner's <br />recommendation that any change to existing uses within the retail center <br />he subject to processing of a PUD Permit amendment. Hotzler indicated <br />that he felt this was a burden on both the owners of the shopping center in <br />their leasing efforts and the City itself to have to process a PUD review for <br />every change in tenant. <br />The City Planner pointed out that a PUD zoning runs the full gamete of <br />uses. The concern is with the type of tenant that might be brought into the <br />center without any control on the part of the City. The Planner suggested <br />an alternative would he for the City could recognize the permitted uses in <br />the B-3 District as the basis for uses at the shopping center. <br />Barraclough suggested that the recommendation for PUD amendment for <br />any tenant change could be applied to only the Snyders property and not <br />over the entire shopping center. Roycraft agreed and pointed out that the <br />focus of this review is the proposed Snyders store. <br />I3arraclough recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development <br />Permit allowing the construction of a Snyders drug store subject to <br />compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner as outlined in <br />his report except that recommendation #1 be modified to require the <br />double stacking of vehicles for the drive-through lane, recommendation #4 <br />be limited to the new Snyders structure only with permitted uses in the B- <br />3District serving as the underlying uses allowed for this site, <br />recommendation #5 would apply to the both the Snyders site as well as the <br />remainder of the shopping center property. <br />Motion seconded by Wojcik. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />Mr. Wojcik recommended approval of the Architectural Review for the <br />Snyders store subject to the recommendations of the City Planner as well <br />as subject to the May 1, 2002 site plan submitted by the developer. <br />Motion seconded by Uatzke. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />6- <br />