pm_980909 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commission vision for this strip. This will happen along the entire strip of Cleveland. MemberWilke asked if there was benefit to having two parcels in a PUD. Dennis Welsch responded that either as a part of the PUD or with parking access easements, the site becomes more valuable for further expansion or as other uses. . MemberMulder described the need for lots A and B in the long-term use of the site. The Cabinet site with twelve parking spaces would be difficult to re-use as another use. The City should have a PUD and Comprehensive Plan amendment for the entire strip along Cleveland. The Commission should work toward broader, flexible uses. MemberKlausing asked for clarification regarding non-conforming uses. Could they be expanded for other uses while retaining the R-1 zone? (No) MemberMulder asked for clarification of actions this evening. Motion: Member Mulder moved, Member Wilke seconded, to recommend continuation of action for up to 60 days (the November Planning Commission meeting) and that Parcel A be added to the proposal and further that language be stricken regarding the requirement to tear down the houses on Parcel A. Member Cunningham asked how a commercial lender would look on Parcel A with a home (or no home) on the site. He was in favor of continuation. MemberMulder stated the PUD broadens the value of the property for any use in a B-1 zone. Motion carried 5 – 1. Ayes:Mulder, Olson, Wilke,Rhody,Cunningham Nays:Klausing MemberKlausing asked if the Schreiers would comment on the proposed motion. Schreier stated he could accept the Planning Commission’s motion. The Commission agreed to speed the process if possible and return at the October Planning Commission meeting. MemberMulder asked if a hearing on changing the Comprehensive Plan from “D” to 3060 Cleveland would be possible. Staff was asked to prepare a 4