Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmembers Elvig and Jeffrey agreed to the concerns listed above with a hip roof to be <br />included over the doorways. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen pointed out there IS also a 50 foot lot requirement that IS being <br />compromised. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec informed the applicant he has the general idea of what the Council would like to <br />see. They. would like an architectural plan, the correct design, the trees, and the diagram <br />showing the landscaping plan with everything included on one plan. He asked if the applicant <br />would be willing to forego action tonight and come forward with the required information at the <br />next City Council meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Murphy replied he would be willing to provide that information if he knew this was heading <br />in the direction of approval. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied this cannot be guaranteed. There are two councilmembers that will likely <br />vote against ~is, but an architectural plan with detail is needed before the majority of the <br />Council would approve this project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he voted against denial of this, but that does not mean he would <br />vote in favor of it. He agrees with Councilmember Strommen's position. If a councilmember <br />were to move to approve this now he does not know that he could support that motion without <br />some of this information coming forward. His suggestion would be to table this if the applicant <br />is willing to comply; if Mr. Murphy is willing to comply with the Council's suggestions he <br />would be in agreement that this is the best use of the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Murphy indicated he would be willing to comply with the Council's requests. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec asked if there is anything else that councilmembers would like addressed with this <br />proposal. <br /> <br />CouncilmemberOlson questioned if a development could be denied even if the Comprehensive <br />Plan amendment were to be approved based on the need for a PUD. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon explained if someone were to come forward and <br />comply with the underlying standards he is not certain what the basis would be for denial. Staff <br />will always work with applicants in trying to identify a solution towards getting approval based <br />on Council input. It is being presented that this is the first time some of these issues are being <br />brought up; but it has been brought up repeatedly to stagger the buildings. They are on the fifth <br />design, and if all that is being done is delaying a decision on a sixth drawing; staff has been <br />trying to carry forward what the Council has indicated. If Council is considering extending this <br />the applicant cannot present the type of drawing that has been presented. Architectural <br />elevations and site plans form engineers and architects are needed. This needs to be clear, as <br />there has been resistance from the applicant to go down that road without assurance. <br /> <br />.CityCouncil / April 10, 2007 <br />Page 14 of 20 <br />