01-25-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission January 12, 1989 The City Planner pointed out that the PUD District allows a lot that the I -1 District would not. The Planner pointed out that the outdoor storage currently in front of the Peterson Maintenance Building is not allowed under I -1 zoning. Under PUD, the City Council could allow the outdoor storage to remain, however, might require it to be screened with a fence. Peterson pointed out that he has no other options for his outdoor storage pointing out that his building is located toward the back of the lot. The City Planner pointed out that through the rezoning of the area, the City Council is hoping to get some higher - quality development to dress up the area. Peterson stated that he was not opposed to dressing up his property. Bob DeBace asked how the rezoning would effect future sales of the developed parcels. The City Planner reported that if a prospective buyer would like to purchase a property and use it as it is presently being used, the use would continue to be grandfathered in if itwere non - conforming. However, if a buyer would like to change the use of a site, the grandfather rights are lost, and the new plan must conform to Code to whatever extent it can. The Planner felt that the PUD zoning was a compromise to going to the I -P District. Costa asked if the trailer park storage would be allowed to remain under the PUD. The City Planner pointed out that the trailer park storage is already non - conforming, and would continue to be non - conforming under the PUD zoning. The City Planner pointed out that the PUD District allows all uses by Conditional Use Permit, as long as the uses are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. DeBace asked if a property needed to be rebuilt, if it could be rebuilt to the same condition even though it might be non - conforming. The Planner replied that this was correct. DeBace agreed that the PUD would give property owners more flexibility. DeLonais felt that under a PUD the City could be more restrictive than it could be if the property remained I -1. The Planner agreed that this was true from one standpoint, but also pointed out that there are more uses allowed since there are no performance standards tied to the District. Page -4-