PL MINUTES 07201976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

page 3 The parking had also been planned around existing trees but Mr. Johnson pointed out that they would probably not last more that five years and suggested a different plan for parking which he felt would provide more pedestrian safety. It was also felt that two of the existing curb cuts could be eliminated. g Development of a walkway along the pathway now used by the residents .to the east to reach Apache Plaza Shopping Center was also considered as well as the problem of ascertaining who would assume liability and maintenance of such a walkway. No association of owners had been formed. Mr. Hiebel questioned how this proposal was any more innovative or creative as a PUD than any of the other individual plans for the property which Mr. Hedlund had previously presented. Mr. Novae and Mr. Daniel Gustafson, who also represented Country Kitchen, gave their philosophy of the purpose of the Planned Unit Development. Both felt the Board should make a decision on the total concept for the plan with the specifics to be negotiated later. Mr. Gustafson said his firm had three other sites in the same area which they were considering for a restaurant and they may decide on one of the others if the project does not go through soon. He felt it was unfair to the developer to hesitate and cited the increase in the tax base of the community. Mr. Formarchick said that he felt since Mr. Hedlund had assured them that all submission requirements for a PUD could be met, he should be given a hearing. Mr. Johnson sympathized with Mr. Hedlund regarding the number of years in which he had tried to dispose of this particular property and apologized for the length of time it had taken to get a new zoning ordinance adopted. i Board members all felt they had taken a positive attitude towards the proposal and Mr. Cowan told Mr. Gustafson he felt their conversations had not been "whether it should be done" but rather "how it should be done". j Mr. Marks and Mr. Letourneau, however, felt that because of a lack of an official ordinance the Board had no basis for making a recommendation to the Council and did not believe they had received enough specific information i on the individual proposals to make a decision. Mr. Marks was especially i cu ncerned about the buffering of the residential area from the commercial and wondered what the justification was for accepting the filing fee for a PUD which had not yet become a part of the zoning ordinance. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Johnson to recommend that the s Council set a date for a Public Hearing before the Planning Board on the PUD application from Mr. Gordon Hedlund foi. Lots 9 through 16, Block 6, I Mounds View Acres, Second Addition subject to the official adoption of the j new zoning ordinance, i Voting on the motion: Aye: Rymarchick, Hiebel, Cowan and Johnson is Nay: Marks and Letourneau Motion carried.