Laserfiche WebLink
mrNUT>us <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 11, 2002 <br />I<eis asked for a timetable for the development of Lot 1, expressing <br />concern that the City may find itself in a situation where it granted the <br />rezoning and allowed outdoor storage and no development is happening <br />on the site. <br />Johnson indicated that he would enter into a development agreement with <br />the City that would place a sunset on the outdoor storage use. That <br />development agreement would revolve the zoning on Lot 3 in the event he <br />does not follow through on the development plan. <br />The City Planner felt that a development agreement that removes zoning <br />was problematic and could put the City in some jeopardy. The Planner <br />indicated that it is the City's role to lied the best zoning for a property. A <br />property owner then makes an investment in a property based on its <br />zoning. To take a zoning back after such an investment has been made <br />would be a problem. <br />fhe Planner suggested that a better way to handle the matter would be to <br />tie the outdoor storage use or removal of certain buildings to a PUD <br />Agreement. The Planner again stated that if a property owner makes an <br />imresunent in a property in reliance on zoning, the courts could look on <br />the revocation of the zoning as a taking. 1-lowever, the City could address <br />the matter under a PUD A~,reement that has sunset provisions built into it. <br />Keis felt that the basic question ~~~as ~n~hether or not the City wanted <br />outdoor storage in this area. <br />"fhe City Planner noted that Q-A~r Zonin~~ is desirable along Country Drive. <br />'I°he Planner expressed concern, however, with the size of Lots 1 and 2 and <br />the road circulation pattern shown on the concept plan. The Planner felt <br />that it may be dill'icult (o meet parking requirements and have room for <br />semi-truck tra(lic circulation in light of the size buildings proposed on <br />these lots. <br />C)ermanson reported that their engineer designed the properties to meet the <br />City's requirements and has indicated that parking and circulation <br />requirements can be met. However, if L.ot I is sold, a new property owner <br />may come in and pro~~~ose a 20,000 square fioot building rather than the <br />X0,450 square feet shown on the site plan. <br />fhe Planner stated (hat the question is raises is if the site can <br />accommodate the development that is being shown on the concept plan. <br />Duray asked why two lots were being proposed along Country Drive. <br />Germanson indicated that if the Knox building is sold, the new owner may <br />8- <br />