10-14-1998 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1998 would tie the parcels together administratively and technically allow the off-site sign. A PUD can be used to ignore interior lot lines for purposes of the development, and is used for multi -use projects. The second option would be to subdivide the property adding a strip of land which would incorporate the sign location to the lot on which the Bally's building is located. The City Planner reported that Bally is requesting either one of these options. The Planner indicated that he has some reservations about the PUD option given that this is not the classic use of a PUD. At some point the remainder of the Schroeder property will develop, and the Bally's sign could end up looking out -of -place along Rice Street. The Planner also pointed out that in the past the City has suggested to owners of commercial property not abutting Rice Street that they could not have signage on Rice Street, and the location of their properties was a shortcoming of the property that they had to deal with. Therefore, the Planner indicated that he had some concern allowing the Bally request when this was not allowed for other property owners. The Planner indicated, however, that if the City is inclined to approve the Bally request, his office would prefer the PUD method. The PUD will give the City a little more authority to regulate what happens on the parcel from a design review standpoint. A subdivision would result in the configuration of a parcel that does not really follow Code from a layout standpoint. Barraclough pointed out that if Bally bought the Schroeder site abutting Rice Street and combined it with their current site, they would be able to install the sign as proposed. The Planner pointed out that all the property, including the Bally site, is owned by Schroeder Development Company. Bally leases the site from Schroeder. The Planner again explained the PUD and subdivision options before the Commission for consideration. Barraclough asked if approval of the CUP for a Planned Unit Development would be setting a precedent. The Planner felt that under either option a precedent would be set. However, the City has more control under the PUD option and a way of managing what might happen later on the site. Page 10