Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 25, 2020 <br />Page 14 of 24 <br />Rice says he understands but if the applicant decides to go to city council and no <br />recommendation has been given from Planning Commission for the GDP, the applicant <br />would have to come back to Planning Commission so that the commissioners could <br />vote on that recommendation. <br />Moline says that that process sounds preferable to him. <br />Zuccaro says that city council has the opportunity to remand the application back to <br />Planning Commission on the GDP. One option is that the commissioners could <br />recommend denial of the GDP because it does not comply with the comprehensive plan <br />as proposed for amendment. This provides maximum flexibility for the applicant so that <br />city council can review both the comprehensive plan amendment as well as the GDP. <br />The commissioners could request per a resolution that if city council chooses to <br />approve the comprehensive plan amendment, council would have to send the <br />application back to Planning Commission for a formal comprehensive plan amendment <br />recommendation. <br />Rice asks what the commissioners thoughts are on staff's suggestion. <br />Moline says that he likes what staff has suggested because that could give the <br />applicant more flexibility. <br />Brauneis says this may be the best course for the application. <br />Rice says motion would be to grant staff to create a resolution of denial for the GDP <br />proposal because it does not conform to the comprehensive plan and for staff to present <br />the resolution at the July 9t" meeting. <br />Diehl mentions to add to the motion the request to remand the application back to <br />Planning Commission for their formal recommendation if city council approves the <br />comprehensive plan amendment. <br />Rice asks staff if that motion would work. <br />Zuccaro says this motion would work. <br />Diehl moves and Moline seconds a motion to grant staff to create a resolution of <br />declination for the general development plan proposal because it does not conform to <br />the comprehensive plan and for staff to present the resolution at the July 9t" meeting. <br />Motion passes unanimously by a roll call vote. <br />Agenda Item B: St Louis Parish and Commercial Park GDP, Second Amendment <br />Continued from June 11, 2020 <br />• A request for approval of a second amendment to the St Louis Parish and <br />Commercial Park General Development Plan to amend allowed uses and <br />development standards, located at the northeast corner of S. 96th Street and <br />Dillon Road. (Resolution 2, Series 2020) <br />o Applicant: United Properties <br />