My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-1984 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
04-25-1984 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/7/2014 2:51:52 PM
Creation date
6/26/2013 11:19:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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 />April 12, 1984 <br />Nardini <br />Rezoning <br />(Cont.) <br />Mrs. Timmons asked why the whole area was not treated as a PUD. <br />The Planner replied that if Mr. Durray does as proposes, a subdivision <br />of the property will be involved. Licht stated tht it is highly <br />unusual for the City to put a PUD on vacant property. This being that <br />PUD is a contract zone and normally a PUD is asked for after a <br />specific proposal is given. Licht stated that under a PUD, the <br />developer is giving up every right. <br />Mr. Licht stated that the special circumstance in this case is that <br />the property ahutts residential, and this does not apply to the <br />westerly lot. <br />The Planner reported that parking will require a conditional use <br />permit on Lot 3. Also, all setbacks must be observed. <br />Mrs. Timmons asked if the first order of business should he changing <br />lot lines. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury commented that then rezoning the property would not <br />automatically approve additional parking. The Planner stated that <br />this is correct. <br />Timmons asked if the lot was large enough for other than parking. <br />The Planner replied that the 100 foot width placed a lot of <br />restrictions on the property. <br />The Planner stated that he felt 8-3 was appropriate for this lot <br />given the PUD zoning next door. This is where the transitional <br />zoning is worked in. <br />Mrs. Nardini pointed out that when the property is resubdivided, <br />Mr. Durray will have to request to have the PUD zoning extended. <br />Mr. Ducharrne recommended approval of B -3 zoning for Lot 4 and a <br />PUD for Lot 5. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Costa. <br />Motion carried 6 - 2. Messrs. Herkenhoff and Delonais opposing. <br />Budget Mr. Harry Steickel appeared before the Commission and informed them <br />Power that Budget Power is contemplating purchasing the property they <br />are currently in. Also, they would like to expand their building, <br />and create a court yard effect. They would be bringing the present <br />and future building up to code. Also, Budget Power would like <br />to bring water to the property and sprinkle the entire building. <br />They would he eliminating the fence on the north property line <br />and Middle Street property line. Parking will be increased by <br />12 stalls. The Venetian Inn has given Budget Power to use their <br />parking lot, when necessary. <br />Page -6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.