Agenda - Council - 09/13/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chairperson Anderson explained that the concept plan does not follow City Code or the City Charter in its entirety. There are a lot of questions that have been raised and a lot of questions he had requested the City Attorney address. But the City Attorney is unable to be present until the July Commission meeting. Mr. Anderson recommended continuing the public hearing until the July meeting. Motion by Chairperson Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Dempsey, to continue the public hearing to the July 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 o'f any joint discussions. Mr. Manuel replied that the group offered a compromise plan, but no response was ever received from the developer. Commissioner Johnson suggested 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 cart the City deny the rezoning when the property is within the MUSA. The Commission needs further input from the City Attorney before any decision can be made. Commissioner Johnson stated that a Iot of people are concerned about what was promised to them by the landowner, but the pr/or commitment does not control the land use that is before the City. Things do change over time. The Commission 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 know the land would be developed and they are not trying to prevent development, but they expect the developer and the City to develop the land in the way it was previously represented to the existing homeowners. Commissioner Dempsey stated that there are several underlying issues involved. They have the legal issue that the property is now within the MUSA 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 without 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. Absent: Commissioner Nixt. 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 w/th a combination of detached townhomes, twinhomes and quadhomes. City Code establishes that Planning Commission/June 6, 2000 Page 8 of 13 -191-