01-25-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES. Planning Commission January 12, 1989 Peterson felt that a PUD zoning was fine for undeveloped properties, but not for existing buildings. Peterson pointed out that many property owners in the area purchased their sites for the zoning. Peterson pointed out that when the area initially developed, the City was happy to get development of the area. DeLonais pointed out that the condition of some properties in this area has gotten pretty rough. DeLonais felt that if the property owners cleaned up the area, the City would not have to get after the property owners. Frattalone stated that he was not opposed to a PUD zoning for the area since it will give the City some control over new development. Frattalone pointed out that he has the largest piece of undeveloped property in the area. Frattalone pointed out that his parcel is a landfill and will require a light - weight building or a floating building with a lot of outdoor storage. Frattalone pointed out that the Council is aware of the poor soils in the area, and realizes that the entire area cannot be developed with block buildings. The Planner agreed, pointing out that the City wants to see the area develop with the highest- quality development that is possible. If the highest quality is a metal building with a brick fascade, than that is what it will have to be. The Planner pointed out that the PUD zoning has been suggested in response to the concerns raised by the property owners in the area. Frattalone was concerned about what the next Council might do, but again pointed out that the reason the PUD was proposed is because of the poor soils in the area. DeBace asked if a development proposal met the standards of the I -1 District even though the property was zoned PUD, if the Council had the ability to deny a proposal. The Planner replied that the Council would have the ability to deny the proposal if it was felt that the development was not in the best interests of the community or did not meet the best standards of development that the property could support. However, the Council could not be arbitrary in its actions. The Planner pointed out that there will be engineering analysis of the various sites and the Council will be aware of the soil conditions of a particular site. DeBace felt the PUD zoning with an industrial basis sounds like it will work, however, pointed out that the burden of proving that a development proposal is the best one for the particular site will be on the property owner. DeBace suggested that if the Commission recommends approval of the PUD it make some statement on the poor soils in the area. Page -5-