Minutes - Council - 04/10/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Look stated with regards to the type of people these units could be sold to, there are equal opportunity housing laws. It was discussed in work session that this property owner was assessed for sewer lines coming up to the property, and he is now hoping to offset some of those costs. However, it has been brought to his attention that the former owner petitioned to get the sewer to that property and was willing to pay the assessment, so the hardship that is being presented concerns him. He also is not necessarily in favor ofthis project from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, as the Comprehensive Plan will be changed in the not too distant future. They need to look at what the new Comprehensive Plan will say and see how it fits in. He agrees with Councilmember Dehen that shoehorning these buildings on the lot does not meet the 50 foot requirement. There are quite a few concerns that need to be overcome to get this project through. Friends of his speak highly of Mr. Murphy, but his concern is how this property will fit in with the Comprehensive Plan in the not too distant future. Mr. Murphy stated from he and Councilmember Look's many conversations before he was elected, those things were discussed fairly extensively. This is a commercial property tucked into a residential setting, and he has a hard time understanding why someone would prefer a commercial building in that position rather than residential housing. The neighbors' houses that are away from the river are in the entry level home bracket. To him it seemed like a good fit when this was first discussed. This property was on the market for a year at a reasonable price and was not of interest as a commercial development to potential buyers. He believes the original planning was inappropriate and the Council has the ability to rectify something that was not zoned what it should be. This is a little leg off the commercial property that is surrounded by residential properties on three sides. The land costs and assessments end up not making the property feasible for City lots; it is a challenged piece of property. Mayor Gamec stated there was basically a consensus of the Council at work session on the concept. There are features in this drawing that do not meet the direction Council had given. Mr. Murphy indicated he believes he has followed through on the direction that was given. There is some resistance to the design concept in general; the reason for the general appearance of the buildings is because of the way they need to be laid out. Mayor Gamec commented the general idea of the concept at work session was that this was the right idea and some of the Councilmembers liked the dormers, landscaping, and the setbacks. Councilmember Strommen stated the Council had indicated in general that this use might be appropriate and they may be willing. to change the land use, but that there are concerns about the massing of buildings and the wall effect. She stated this is the fifth submittal, and she understands the applicant has done what he could. She questioned whether this is a matter of tweaking as they have tried to do, or whether at some point it should be determined it is not a matter of tweaking because they cannot do what they are trying to do on this site. There have been little tweaks, but it has not created the effect that she understands the Council directed. Mayor Gamec indicated the issues at this time appear to be the staggering of the buildings, consistency in the dormers, and landscaping. City Council / April 10, 2007. Page 10 of20