06-27-1984 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^11 N "Ti.ti ^tannins; Commission June 14, 1984 Palmen (Cont.) Richards (Cont.) Palmen (Cont.) Mr. Costa pointed out that the Palmen property is quite isolated. Costa asked how long Mr. Palmen lived in that location. Mr. Licht replied that Palmen has owned the property for seven years. Mr. Licht agreed that the property is isolated, but pointed out that whatever action is taken on this request will set a precedent. The Planner pointed out that Mr. Richards has two dump trucks on his property and the City is pursuing legal avenues in this regard. The Planner stated that Richards may be coming in with a PUD request. Mr. French felt that approval of a PUD in the Palmen request would be spot zoning. Mrs. Kingsbury pointed out that if the P110 request is approved in this case, any R -1 property would have as much rights to request PUD zoning. Mr. Herkenhof:f asked if the neighbors have objected to the request. The Planner replied that they have not, but the neighbors should not he allowed to decide these cases. The Planner pointed out that the property could be sold and the type of storage changed. Mr. Costa stated that the City would have control under a PUD. The Planner replied that the City would have a contract it must legally enforce. Mr. Costa felt that as the property was so isolated, the business would not bother anyone. Mr. Herkenhoff asked if the business has been operating for seven years. The Planner did not know. Mr. DeLonais recommended that the matter be tabled as Mr. Palmen was not present. Motion seconded by Mr. Perlinger. Motion carried ,8 — 0. The Planner stated that the issue may have been withdrawn. The Planner also pointed out that a PUD would offer the City more protection. The Planning Commission did not have to he concerned whether the request was considered under a PUD or CUP, bit just whether it was proper or not. Page —5—