Agenda - Council - 06/13/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I Motion by Chairperson Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Dempsey, to continue the public hearing at the Ju~y 10, 2000 Planning Commission regular meeting. Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson inquired if there had been any discussions between the neighborhood group and the developer. Mr. Lund stated that he was not aware of any joint discussions. Mr. Manuel replied that the group offered a compromise plan, but no response was ever received from the developer. Commissioner Johnson suggest that it would be beneficial if the attorney's of each group make some contact and try to have some successful negotiations. A resident from the audience inquired why the Commission cannot just deny the request. Chairperson Anderson stated that one of the questions with the rezoning is that can the City deny the rezoning when the facts are there is residential property within the MUSA. The Commission needs further input from the City Attorney before any decision can be made. Commissioner Johnson stated that a lot of people are concerned about what was promised to them by the landowner, but the prior commitment does not control the land use that is before the City. Things do change over time and even if he was told one things it does not mean that things do not change. The Conunission needs to make the best judgement regarding land use. Commissioner Johnson requested that the City Engineer provide information regarding traffic issues at the next meeting. Mr. Manuel replied that the residents always new the land would be developed and they are not trying to prevent development, but were presented a development a certain way and expect the developer and the City to develop the land that way. Commissioner Dempsey stated that there are several underlying issues involved. They have the legal issue that the property is now within the M-USA line and they have a concept plan that is not in conformance with City Code or the City Charter which makes it difficult for the Commission to proceed with out advice from the City Attorney. Ms. Gilbertson questioned the difference between the plan presented 18 months ago and the current proposed plan. Commissioner Dempsey explained that each application has to be addressed separately. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners Dempsey, Johnson, Kociscak, and Wivoda. Voting No: None. Case #5: Request for a Site Plan Review of Quadhomes at Mallard Ponds;-Case of Bulow, Inc. City Planner Rasmussen stated that Chris Bulow of Bulow, Inc. has applied for site plan review for a quadhome development to be located on Block 2 of the proposed Mallard Ponds subdivision. The plat is generally located at the northeast intersection of County Roads #57 and # 116. The City Council recently introduced an ordinance to rezone the property from B-1 and B- 2 Business to Planned Unit Development to facilitate development of the area with a combination of detached townhomes, twinhomes and quadhomes. City Code establishes that multiple family structures of 3 or more units are subject to a site plan review. Therefore, Nh'. Bulow has applied for site plan approval of the quadhome portion of the development. The proposal is for 9 quadhome structures for a total of 36 units, The multifamily units are bi-level, 1 and 2 bedroom townhomes with unfinished basements. Each unit will have a minimum of 888 square feet of finished living space. The exteriors of the structures are proposed to consist of Planning Commission/June 6, 2000 Pal~sfi9--o f 13