Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Anderson explained that the concept plan does not follow City Code or the City <br />Charter in its entirety. There are a lot of questions that have been raised and a lot of questions he <br />had requested the City Attorney address. But the City Attorney is unable to be present until the <br />July Commission meeting. Mr. Anderson recommended continuing the public hearing until the <br />July meeting. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Dempsey, to continue the public <br />hearing to the July I 0, 2000 Planning Commission regular meeting. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson inquired if there had been any discussions between <br />the neighborhood group and the developer. Mr. Lund stated that he was not aware of any joint <br />discussions. Mr. Manuel replied that the group offered a compromise plan, but no response was <br />ever received from the developer. Commissioner Johnson suggested that it would be beneficial <br />if the attorney's of each 'group make some contact and try to have some successful negotiations. <br />A resident from the audience inquired why the Commission cannot just deny the request. <br />Chairperson Anderson stated that one of the questions with the rezoning is can the City deny the <br />rezoning when the property is within the MUSA. The Commission needs further input from the <br />City Attorney before any decision can be made. Commissioner Johnson stated that a lot of <br />people are concerned about what was promised to them by the landowner, but the prior <br />commitment does not control the land use that is before the City. Things do change over time. <br />The Commission needs to make the best judgement regarding land use. Commissioner Johnson <br />requested that the City Engineer provide information regarding traffic issues at the next meeting. <br />Mr. Manuel replied that the residents always know the land would be developed and they are not <br />trying to prevent development, but they expect the developer and the City to develop the land in <br />the way it was previously represented to the existing homeowners. Commissioner Dempsey <br />stated that there are several underlying issues involved. They have the legal issue that the <br />property is now within the MUSA line and they have a concept plan that is not in conformance <br />with City Code or the City Charter, which makes it difficult for the Commission to proceed <br />without advice from the City Attorney. Ms. Gilbertson questioned the difference between the <br />plan presented 18 months ago and the current proposed plan.' Commissioner Dempsey explained <br />that each application has to be addressed separately. <br /> <br />lvlotion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Anderson, CommisSioners Dempsey, Johnson, <br />Kocisc-ak:, and Wivoda. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Nixt. <br /> <br />Case #5: <br /> <br />Request for a Site Plan Review of Quadhomes at Mallard Ponds; Case of <br />Bulow, Inc. <br /> <br />City Planner Rasmussen stated that Chris Bulow of Bulow, Inc. has applied for site plan review <br />for a' quadhome development to be located on Block 2 of the proposed Mallard Ponds <br />subdivision. The plat is generally located at the northeast intersection of .County Roads #57 and <br />#116. The City Council recently introduced an ordinance to rezone the property from B-1 and B- <br />2 Business to Planned Unit Development to facilitate development of the area with a <br />combination of detached townhomes, twinhomes and quadhomes. City Code establishes that <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 6, 2000 <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br /> <br />-259- <br /> <br /> <br />