My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-24-1996 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
01-24-1996 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2014 1:02:57 PM
Creation date
3/13/2013 10:17:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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 />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JANUARY 11, 1996 <br />The Planner pointed out that the Development Guide <br />addresses this corner. Any proposal which meets the <br />objectives of the Development Guide would be looked on <br />favorably. The Planner stated that if Guerin's concern <br />is that the Development Guide is not crystal clear, <br />that is true. There is some flexibility in the PUD <br />zoning which would allow for slight changes, but still <br />meet the intent and objectives of the City for that <br />property. <br />Guerin indicated that the Development Guide states that <br />the use of the site should not be automotive in nature, <br />should be two - story, and should encompass the Budget <br />Power site as well. Guerin stated that it might not be <br />possible to get control of the Budget Power site. <br />Guerin questioned this kind of control over his <br />property. <br />The Planner replied that the City can only expect the <br />Guerin's to develop their own property. Addition of <br />the Budget Power site would be the best situation, but <br />perhaps that will not happen. The Planner suggested <br />that if the Guerin's came up with a proposal that met <br />the objectives of the Development Guide, and would <br />create an anchor corner, eventually the Budget Power <br />property would be redeveloped. The Planner felt such a <br />proposal would have a reasonable chance of approval. <br />Fahey agreed, stating that the Council will not hold up <br />redevelopment until various parcels can be combined. <br />Fahey stated that he would not vote against a project <br />for the Guerin property that meets the criteria of the <br />Development Guide. However, a Holiday Station would <br />not meet that criteria. Fahey indicated that a PUD <br />zone provides more flexibility as well as more control <br />for the City. Fahey stated that the Guerin site will <br />not be held up contingent on combination with other <br />parcels. <br />Guerin asked what the Development Guide would like to <br />see for that corner. <br />Fahey pointed out that the Guerin's have a copy of the <br />Guide, and suggested that they get together with the <br />City Planner to discuss it. Fahey stated that he would <br />support a proposal which meets the guidelines of the <br />Development Guide. <br />5 <br />Page 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.