Agenda - Council - 12/28/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Further discussion: Commissioner Brauer stated he has stated numerous times that staff s recommendation should be followed; the Commission should support staff on this type of recommendation. Commissioner Van Scoy noted he had asked staff whether the contingency would cover concerns. City Engineer Jankowski advised there are always motions that come out of the Planning Commission with contingencies. This is more acceptable to come from the Planning Commission, but when the City Council takes action it should be certain that what they have approved can actually be constructed in that manner because there are legal rights given to the applicant at preliminary plat. Associate Planner Dalnes asked if the Planning Commission would like to review the soil data once it is completed. Chairperson Nixt questioned if the Planning Commission would receive any snore information than a paragraph in the Staff Review Letter stating that the system meets City requirements for septic if they were to table this. Associate Planner Dalnes replied the Staff Review Letter would likely include a paragraph stating the information regarding the soil is satisfactory and can now move forward to City Council. Chairperson Nixt requested clarification that the Commission will not receive detailed information to provide direction to the applicant, and if the plat is changed the Council will return it to the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Dalnes responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Nixt expressed his preference to include the septic design as a contingency, rather than tabling action and delaying this process. Commissioner Van Scoy asked if the contingency will cover the concerns of staff. City Engineer Jankowski replied the contingency would be an acceptable way for the Planning Commission to proceed. He noted there are often contingencies based on issues such as receipt of a WMO permit to be certain that storm sewer needs are met. Chairperson Nixt noted there are many contingencies based on government actions. While he respects the position of the motion he does not know that they would receive any more information than is often the case with any number of third party approvals. Motion failed. Voting Yes: Commissioners Brauer and Cleveland. Voting No: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Hunt, Trites Rolle, and Van Scoy. Absent: Commissioner Levine. Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Trites Rolle, to recommend preliminary plat and site plan approval for Northfork Office Condos contingent on compliance with the City Staff Review Letter dated September 26, 2006, and contingent on the applicant's delivery of information satisfactory to City staff regarding the location, size, design, and integrity of the community septic system, both as a primary and alternate site. This includes the testing, sizing assumptions, specification of locations, and identification of responsible parry for management and maintenance of the community septic system. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Trites Rolle, Hunt, and Van Scoy. Voting No: Commissioners Brauer and Cleveland. Absent: Commissioner Levine. Case #4: Request to Rezone Property from E-1 Employment to Planned Unit Development (PUD); Case of St. Andrews Investment Group, LLC -281-