Agenda - Council - 09/10/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that they do. He stated that this is an ongoing process and the City will continue to work with Mr. Young to work in a positive direction to embrace his business in the community. Councilmember Musgrove stated that she appreciates the feedback from the business owner. She stated that she was not aware of the fees and asked if there can be a future discussion related to those fees for builders and developers. She stated that she likes the combination of colors and proposed model and will be supporting the application. Motion by Councilmember Riley, seconded by Councilmember Musgrove, to Adopt Resolution #19-174 Approving Development Agreement for M&G Trailer to Operate a Trailer Sales and Repair Business on the Property Generally Known as 9387 Highway 10 NW, contingent upon final review by the City Engineer and City Attorney as well as modifying the site plan to widen the driveway access. Further discussion: Councilmember Heinrich thanked Mr. Young for his feedback and stated that she would also be interested in having further discussion on the topic of fees. Mayor LeTourneau stated that the issue around the fees is not something the City takes lightly, and the fees are reviewed on a regular basis, noting that new members Musgrove and Heinrich may have not yet had an opportunity to be part of that process. He stated that the City also receives positive feedback from businesses but noted that the Council does appreciate this feedback tonight as well. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor LeTourneau, Councilmembers Riley, Musgrove, Heinrich and Kuzma. Voting No: None. 7.02: Adopt Resolution #19-180 Approving Appeal for a Denied Variance to Bufferyard Setbacks and Resolution #19-152 Approving Development Agreement; Case of Delta ModTech Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the staff report and noted that the Planning Commission denied the requested variance in part due to lack of information provided by the developer. In order to address some of this concern, the developer has provided a more detailed response. Additionally, the Planning Commission felt that the developer could simply shift the site 20 feet to the east or shrink the size of the building by 20 feet. He stated that staff originally recommended approval of the variance. When looking at this area on the macro -scale, and not as one individual project, the entire site would be impacted by the change. Unlike the industrial development to the south, this site is impacted by an existing residential lot insert to the overall block. This residential site was originally recommended for rezoning to the E-3 Employment consistent with the project site. At that time, the owner of the adjacent residential site requested additional time to explore impacts. To date, the City has not received additional feedback and staff would recommend moving forward with the original zoning amendment on this parcel. Councilmember Riley asked what the setback would be if the adjacent residential parcel were zoned E-3. City Council / July 23, 2019 Page 5 of 10