PL MINUTES 02151977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Mr. Letourneau said he was not convinced that the property could not be developed for some type of . residential use which the City needs . He also felt the Board had a responsibility to protect the economic health of the businesses in operation in the area now especially in view of the problems which are besetting the Apache Shopping Center and other businesses in the City. He definitely opposed rezoning to "commercial" . Mr. Marks was also concerned whether the long term effect of segmented shopping areas might lead to the degradation of one or both shopping centers. However, he said he could also see some possibility that if this project were developed in the manner suggested by Mr. Dale it might influence Apache to follow suit. He said he could favor the development only if he were certain that the usage could be governed by legally viable agreements but feared just placing trust in the developer and the planner, speculating that financial pressures might later force them to back on any verbal agreements . Mr. Johnson did not feel the Board should concern itself with trying to legislate architectural style but should only be considering the land use. He agreed with Mr. Vickrey that the City could better con- trol uses through a PUD but pointed out that the City's PUD had not been written exclusively to deal with this property but was geared more to the possible redevelopment of much larger tracts of land in the City such as the Salvation Army grounds and the mobile home park. • He said he could think of a number of other uses than those listed by the planner which would be objectionable for this development and felt it would be very dangerous to go to a "commercial" zoning for this proposal. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Letourneau to recommend to the Council denial of the Hedlund request for rezoning to "C" (commercial) the west187 feet of Lot 10 and the west 147 feet of Lots 11 through 16, Block 6 , Mounds View Acres , Second Addition because the specific land uses are unknown and no provisions have been offered for controlling the type of tenants who may use the proposed buildings and in the absence of a construction timetable. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Marks asked the City Attorney whether it was appropriate for the Board to indicate to the Council the aspects of the proposal which they felt had merit, and Mr. Vickrey said that, though they could only officially respond to the request for rezoning, they could let the Council know they might favor an attempt being made to work with the developer to accomplish some controls over the uses for the land and phasing in its construction. Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to indicate to the Council that the Board believes the concept as proposed by Mr. Dale • in behalf of Mr. Hedlund appears to deserve consideration subject to ordinance modification or variances (especially the PUD section) and (6)