Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />November• 23, 1988 <br />Conoco Blesener• pointed out that the statement was that the County would not <br />Convenience deny the curb cut. <br />Gas Station <br />(Cont.) LaValle stated that he had a difficult time approving the proposal <br /> because of the curb cut as pr•oposed and the tr~affic flow at the <br /> inter•sec tion. LaValle did not see how the situation would work. <br />Collova felt the traffic signals at the intersection were confusing, <br />and questioned the feasibility of another driveway at the inter~section. <br />Mr. ~lesener intr•oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-506 - DENYING THE CONOCO <br />RFQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONVENIENCE <br />GAS STATIOP! DUE TO THE FEELING OF THE COUNCIL THAT <br />THE DRIVEtdAY AS PROPOSED ON CENTERVILLE ROAD WOULD <br />BE A DAMGEROUS SITUATION AND BASED ON THE PLANNING <br />COP1MISSI0~1'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF THE <br />CUP b1ITH THE FEELIPJG OF THE CITY COU~ICIL THAT IT <br />IS NOT GOOD PLAN~lI~1G TO FOCUS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF <br />THIS SITE WITHOUT INCLUDING THE MONDOR PROPERTY AS <br />WELL <br />The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. LaValle. <br />Ayes (4) Blesener~, LaValle, Collova, Scalze. <br />Nays (1) Fahey. <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Pages 541 and 542. <br />Fahey stated that he did not vote in favor of the r•esolution since he <br />would like mor•e infor•mation from the County Engineer before acting on <br />the proposal. Fahe,y suggested that perhaps the City should consider <br />r•ezoning the pr~operty to PUD, including the Monc!or~ property. Fahey <br />felt this would give the City more control over• what is developed on <br />the pr•operty. <br />Scalze agreed, and also pointed out that Tax Incr•ement Financing may be <br />a tool the City should iase to get both of these parcels to develop as <br />one. <br />The City Planner pointed out that the City had the option of leaving <br />the pr•operty B-3 but requiring a conditional use permit pr•ocess for <br />any development proposal for the pr•oper~ty, or• the City could rezone <br />the pr•operty to PUD. <br />Qlesener~ sugoested that the City Planner• review these two options and <br />give the Coiancil a recommendation. However, in the meantime, the <br />Council could call for• a public hear~ing on the rezoning. <br />Mr•. Fahey introduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: <br />Page -7- <br />