Minutes - Council - 09/26/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

county road, Anoka County was notified of the site plan submittal. The existing building material consists of painted concrete block. The expansion is also proposed to be painted block. Painted block is not typically permitted in the E-l District but City Code does allow the City Council to approve other materials. The Planning Commission recommended that the Council approve the use of painted block to match the existing building. Ms. Geisler indicated a revised grading and drainage plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and some minor revisions are required, as noted in the City Staff Review Letter. The landscaping plan is generally acceptable. Ms. Geisler advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan, contingent on Council approval of the use of painted block, receipt of a variance to the rear yard setback, and compliance with the City Staff Review Letter. Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Elvig, to grant approval of the proposed site plan with the use of painted block, contingent upon compliance with the City Staff Review Letter dated August 31, 2006, revised September 22, 2006, receipt of a variance to the rear yard setback requirement, and execution of the Development Permit. Motion carried. V oting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Cook, Elvig, Jeffrey, Olson, Pearson, and Strommen. Voting No: None. Case #7: Adopt Findings of Fact Related to Exception from Development Moratorium; Case of Ron Tallman Associate Planner Geisler reviewed that the Council considered Mr. Ron Tallman's request for exception to the development moratorium in the Rural Developing District at the August 8, 2006 meeting. Staff was directed to draft findings of fact to deny the request, based on the criteria contained in the moratorium ordinance. Draft findings were brought to the City Council on August 22, 2006, but were tabled until the next meeting due to a number of absences. Mr. Tallman requested that action be tabled at the September 11, 2006 meeting so that his attorney could be present for Council's action on the case. Ms. Geisler indicated the Council has been provided with revised findings of fact and a revised resolution. Councilmember Cook stated he tabled this at the last meeting because he felt with only five members present there may have been enough votes to go one direction or another, but it could have put the developer in a difficult situation of not getting their plat approved. He still feels strongly the developer has a case here, and he will continue to advocate that the Council approve this and go forward with it. It is a good project. The developer is correct that they have a hardship and have concerns. At the last meeting he asked Community Development Director Trudgeon to bring information forward on what the Council had discussed in work session beforehand. He believes it was said the first time the developer came to meet with the Council, the Council asked them to do something about the length of the cul-de-sac. After that the Council said it is a difficult situation and they would allow it to go forward with the cul-de-sac, and to continue planning. Then, at the last meeting for the preliminary plat the Council denied it because of the length of the cul-de-sac. He thinks it is unfair; this developer has worked with the City for almost two years, and has done almost everything they have asked, and now the developer has purchased property to remove the cul-de-sac. He thinks the developer has a hardship under this moratorium and they should let this project go forward. City Council / September 26, 2006 Page 10 of39