Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2003

Home

Associate Planner Wald stated that the Council would need to make a motion to waive the 14 day time frame requirement between the Planning Commission public hearing and City Council action for Cases 6 and 10. Councilmember Elvig stated that he has concerns with the overall layout of the project and felt that they were moving to fast. He stated that he would like to table action to allow for more time to review the case. Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to table action on Cases 6 through 11 based on the 14-day requirement and to allow for more time for the Council to discuss the project at a work session. Further discussion: City Attorney Goodrich explained that if the motion passes the Council can discuss the development informally, but no decisions can be made. Councilmember Kurak replied that the discussion .would basically be to provide direction to the developer so that they can address some' of the Council's concerns at the work session. Councilmember Cook inquired as to why the development was being moved so quickly. Associate Planner Wald explained that the developer paid a $200 fee for a special Planning Commission meeting to be held. A special meeting was scheduled, but there was no quorum so the case was not heard until the June meeting. As a courtesy to the developer staff added the case to the first Council meeting of June rather than waiting until the second meeting as typically occurs. Councilmember Elvig replied that the developer should be refunded the $200. Motion was amended to direct staff to refund Oak Creek Builders, Inc. the $200 they paid to hold a special Planning Commission meeting. Further discussion: Councilmember Cook inquired if there was any reason they could not discus the development if they table action. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the Council can discuss the development, but no motions can be made. Councilmember Cook inquired if the Council were to waive the 14-day waiting period requirement could they proceed with action on all of the cases. City Attorney Goodrich replied yes. Councilmember Elvig explained that his concern with moving forward is that they are moving projects very quickly and he was concerned they were setting a precedent and that they have only had three days to review such a large project. Councilmember Kurak inquired if there was any concern with the 60-day rule. City Attorney Goodrich replied no. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Elvig, Kurak, Cook, Pearson, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. City Administrator Norman suggested holding a work session on May 17th following Public Works Committee meeting to discuss the development. Consensus of the City Council was to hold a work session on May 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council/June 10, 2003 Page 11 of 24 P61