Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />February 28, 1990 <br />separate properties. Boosalis again pointed out that <br />the two phases could have been developed by two <br />different developers, and could have been very <br />different in appearance. If this had happened, <br />Boosalis believes that the City would have allowed two <br />pylons for each phase. Boosalis again stated that had <br />he known, he would have negotiated the additional pylon <br />in the PUD Agreement. <br />Scalze pointed out that 6 out of 7 Planning <br />Commissioners felt that there should be two signs or <br />less at the Center. Scalze felt that there has been no <br />additional information presented this evening to <br />support the additional pylon. If there is additional <br />information, Scalze felt the matter should be sent back <br />to the Planning Commission. <br />Boosalis pointed out that the charge of the Planning <br />Commission is for the orderly development of the City <br />according to the City's Land Use Plan. Boosalis <br />pointed out that the Planning Commission voted against <br />the rezoning of the R-1 property on Rice Street to <br />Commercial when the Land Use Plan addressed this area <br />as Commercial. Boosalis pointed out that the Council <br />rezoned the property to Commercial without resubmitting <br />that proposal to the Planning Commission. <br />Scalze stated that it was her position that if there is <br />additional information presented to the Council on a <br />proposal, the matter should be returned to the Planning <br />Commission so that they might consider the new <br />information. <br />Fahey pointed out that the Council and Planning <br />Commission do not always agree nor is it necessary that <br />they agree. Fahey pointed out that the way the <br />ordinance is written, there is no justification for <br />granting the variance before the Council, however, he <br />believed that a free-standing building within a <br />shopping center should have its own pylon and felt the <br />ordinance needed to be amended to address this <br />situation. Fahey asked if Rapid Oil had other sites <br />where they were not allowed a pylon. <br />Schack stated that there is one instance he can recall <br />about 7 or 8 years ago where this is true. <br />Scalze pointed out that the Rapid Oil near Maplewood <br />Mall is in a two-tenant building. <br />Page 6 <br />