Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />March 9, 1989 <br />McNamara & Mr. Costa asked if the Mondors would have to give their <br />Mondor PUD approval of the rezoning change. Mr. Grittman informed the <br />Zoning Commission that either the City or the property owner can <br />(cont.) initiate the rezoning change. <br />Mr. Costa felt that the City was pushing the Mondors to <br />sell. Mr. Grittman felt that this was not necessarily so. <br />Mr. Grittman stated that the Council is concerned that if <br />the City has a development that it permits by Ordinance and <br />meets the City's minimum requirements, the City would not <br />have the opportunity to review it, and even though it met <br />the minimum requirements, according to the Council's <br />interpretation, it may not be a properly planned project for <br />that corner due to the location of the light and the <br />configuration of the intersection. <br />Ms. Runestrand stated that she understood that the reason <br />for rezoning was to protect her parents from being stuck <br />behind a gas station. Mr. Costa stated that the Mondors may <br />still be stuck under the PUD zoning. Mr. Grittman indicated <br />that the purpose of the PUD zoning was so that the Council <br />would have the authority to review the project. <br />Mr. Grittman stated that without the PUD zoning, a project <br />could come in without City review and could preclude the <br />development of the surrounding property. <br />Mr. Costa asked if the City were looking for one project for <br />both properties. Mr. Grittman stated that this would be <br />ideal but it is not a specific requirement, and that it is <br />possible that two projects could work on the separate <br />properties. <br />Mr. DeLonais asked why the City should then zone both <br />properties to PUD if there is a chance that there would be <br />two projects working on the separate properties. <br />Mr. Grittman stated it is possible that a project could go <br />in without City review that would meet the minimum <br />requirements of the Ordinance and could still have a poor <br />driveway location in relation to the intersection. <br />Mr. Costa stated that the City may get a development <br />proposal on the McNamara property which has no relation to <br />the Mondor property, and therefore the driveway may not be <br />needed on Centerville Road. Mr. Grittman indicated that <br />this was true; however,,if that development did come in and <br />the driveway was not need, the Planning Commission and the <br />Council would probably approve the project if it was <br />appropriate and appropriately located on the property. <br />Page 2 <br />