My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-27-99 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
04-27-99 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 5:08:53 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:58:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 27, 1999 <br />She noted that a towing business is not accessory to a landscaping <br />business. Scalze questioned where this would stop and suggested that the <br />City could end up with ten separate uses on a property. <br />Fahey asked what would prevent similar requests for multiple uses of a <br />property from being made and suggested that a precedent would be <br />created if the City approved this request. <br />The City Planner indicated that the PUD zoning allows for multiple <br />principle uses on a parcel. However, if the City feels the uses are not <br />appropriate for the area or are not in compliance with the Comp Plan, then <br />the Council has the ability to deny the request. <br />Scalze questioned how many multiple users there could be on a four acre <br />site with no street system. Scalze pointed out the development of the I-P <br />District on the other side of the freeway, where a street system was <br />required, provisions for trash, etc. <br />The Planner felt this was a good example, but noted that the PUD provides <br />the City some flexibility and if the City is going to allow the multiple uses <br />on a lot, than the City should be getting something in return. The City has <br />the ability to encourage a higher quality site design and should consider <br />whether it is getting that in this situation. <br />Fahey noted that it is clear that the City would not be getting hi~her <br />quality site design with an impound lot. <br />Scalze felt that Mr. Carle had a fine business, but questioned that the <br />property would be a mini Ryan Industrial park if the City allowed another <br />building to be constructed with no roads, provision for trash service, etc. <br />Mr. Carle pointed out that he has withdrawn his request for the impound <br />lot and indicated that he would not be constructing another building for the <br />towin~ business. His proposal is for the parking of tow trucks on the site <br />as well as allowing Swift Towing the use of office space in his existing <br />office building. Carle pointed out that he has an office building as well as <br />a storage building existing on the site. <br />The City Planner indicated that the CUP would be necessary given that <br />Mr. Carle is introducing a new use to the site. <br />Fahey pointed out that by allowing the office use and parkin~ of the tow <br />trucks the City would be gaining an upgrade of the property and correction <br />of the code violations. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.