Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />Aug. 9, 1984 <br />Behr <br />(Cont.) <br />Motion carried 7 — 0. <br />The Planner reported that if Mr. Behr would like to present the <br />scaled —down version of the operation to the Council, he should do <br />so in writing. <br />Mrs. Timmons stated that she was opposed to any scaled —clown version <br />and did not feel this should be in a residential neighborhood. <br />Mr. Behr asked if he could store appliances and mowers on the <br />premises. The Planner stated that this would be in violation of <br />the ordinance. <br />R & S Mr. Louie Rustad appeared before the Commission requesting a PUD <br />zoning for his property. <br />The Planner pointed out that there are three parcels involved and <br />different financing on each parcel. Therefore, the property cannot <br />be combined into one parcel, until the property is paid for. The <br />Planner stated that this can be handled under a PUD and when the <br />property is either sold or paid —off, it would then be combined into <br />one. The Planner stated that this is the purpose of the PUD to ensure <br />that the property is combined. <br />Mr. Rustad asked what he has to provide for screening. The Planner <br />replied that he will send Mr. Rustad an example of this. <br />Mr. Rustad stated that he will provide the City with a bond. Rustad <br />asked if both sides of the street would be responsible for the <br />improvement of the street or if he would have to pay for the whole <br />street. The Planner replied that Mr. Pustad would only be responsible <br />for half the street. <br />Mrs. Timmons stated that she felt the PUD was a good solution for the <br />property. Timmons felt that the Commission could act on the proposal <br />now so that it would not have to come hack. <br />Mrs. Timmons recommended approval of the PUD requested by R & S and <br />the conditional use permit in order to solve the subdivision problem <br />based on the recommendations of the City Planner, Attorney and Engineer. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Ducharme. <br />Motion carried 8 — 0. <br />Mr. DeLonais asked about the road issue. The Planner stated that it <br />was his position that this is a separate issue and does not effect <br />where Mr. Rustad is today. The City may come back and request an <br />easement and may also need easements from other people as well. <br />