Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />Nov. 3, 1983 <br />Market Place <br />(Cont.) <br />Greg <br />Johnson <br />PUD <br />Motion seconded by Mr. DeLonais. <br />Motion carried 5 β€” 0. <br />Mr. DeLonais wanted it noted in the record that the Planning <br />Commission has no information on the Greg Johnson PUD. <br />Mr. Grittman reported that the Planner sent all the reports to the <br />City Center and these reports were to have been sent to the Planning <br />Commission by the City staff. <br />Mr. Greg Johnson appeared before the Commission and reported that <br />he would like to split his property into four parcels. The first <br />parcel would contain the warehouse, the second the store and <br />laundramat, the third the office building and the fourth the <br />apartment bulding. <br />Mrs. Timmons pointed out that the parcel containing the warehouse <br />would be a landlocked parcel. Mr. Johnson agreed but reported that <br />an easement would be dedicated to access the warehouse. Mr. Johnson <br />also pointed out that there is an easement on the south side of the <br />parcel already. <br />Mr. Johnson reported that he has a purchase agreement to sell the <br />office building. <br />Timmons stated that she was concerned about access to the warehouse. <br />Timmons stated that there would be different requirements depending <br />upon what is in the warehouse. This could impact on the width of <br />the driveway also. <br />Mr. Costa asked the location of the driveway. Mr. Johnson replied <br />that the driveway would remain as it is presently. <br />The Planner commented that according to the plan there are 16 feet <br />between the steps of the apartment building and the slope next to <br />the office building. The Planner commented that only under a PUD <br />can the property be split due to the numerous variances that <br />would be needed. The Planner also stated that the lots would be <br />subject to whatever conditions the City put in the PUD. <br />Mrs. Timmons asked why it would he right to grant the property division <br />with a PUD in view of the numerous variances that would be needed <br />otherwise. The Planner replied because the uses of the property are <br />preβ€” existing to the ordinance and are not changing. <br />Timmons asked if the use of the warehouse could be restricted under <br />the PUD so that a company that might have heavy traffic would be <br />prohibited. <br />Page β€”3β€” <br />