Laserfiche WebLink
) <br />MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />March 9, 1989 <br />McNamara & Mr. Grittman stated that this would not be a problem and the <br />Mondor PUD Mondors would still have developable property under the PUD <br />Zoning zoning. <br />(cont.) <br />Mr. Costa asked Ms. Runestrand if the Mondors approved of <br />the PUD zoning. Ms. Runestrand indicated that she was told <br />that the value of the property would be less under the PUD <br />zoning. Mr. Costa asked if the Mondors and Mr. McNamara <br />were close to a price. Ms. Runestrand indicated that she <br />has not heard from them regarding the counter offer and so <br />she does not think they are close to a price. Mr. Costa <br />indicated that the entire matter should be tabled. <br />Mr. DeLonais asked Mr. Grittman if the City would have more <br />say on what project goes in that corner under the PUD <br />zoning. Mr. Grittman indicated that this was so. <br />Mr. Davison stated that he would be in favor of the <br />rezoning. Mr. Davison felt that due to the surrounding <br />residential neighborhood, the City should get as much <br />control of the development of that corner as they can. <br />Mr. Chlebeck stated that the Planning Commission has 60 days <br />to make a recommendation to the Council, and the <br />Commission's 60 days is almost up. Mr. Grittman stated that <br />the Council may wish to take action on this matter at their <br />March 22 meeting. <br />Mr. DeLonais recommended that the Council authorize the PUD <br />rezoning for the McNamara and the Mondor properties. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Davison. <br />Motion carried 5 - 1. <br />FinaServe <br />Sign Height <br />Variance <br />Appeal <br />Mr. Pat Wilcox, a representative from FinaServe, appeared <br />before the Commission reporting that he had submitted a <br />letter to the Commission dated, February 28, 1989, setting <br />forth their position on this matter. Mr. Wilcox stated that <br />they are appealing the City Council's past denial of not <br />letting FinaServe replace their current 30' pylon sign with <br />a new 30' sign. <br />Mr. Wilcox indicated that this matter had been before the <br />Commission in August in which the Commission approved <br />FinaServe's request, and Mr. Wilcox requested approval once <br />again and asked the Commission to recommend approval to the <br />Council based upon two theories. The first being that <br />FinaServe would not need a variance to change the sign based <br />upon the prior example of the Union 76 sign request where <br />Page 3 <br />