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

Home

Councilmember Strommen stated this was delayed with the first submittal because Council wanted to see an architectural style where the front garage doors did not dominate and there was not a massing of buildings. She is not sure that they have moved very far from that first submittal. They are still talking about staggering the buildings and landscaping. She understands Mr. Murphy is willing to continue to try to work with this, but she still has the concerns she had with the first submittal, and has a concern in going forward when they have not quite gotten the essence of what the Council has requested~ This could have been approved several months ago if Council wanted to approve it subject to these conditions. Mr. Murphy stated there are limitations with the property itself. Because of the shape and type of the property the buildings had to be oriented the long way, which is why the garages need to be in the front. The land created some limitations on the type of floor plan that can be done on the site. His biggest concern was the interior layout and design; he wanted to make this senior friendly and needed about 1,200 square feet on the main floor, and to do that he needed to run the buildings back. His focus has been on the inside; he knows he can make the buildings aesthetically pleasing. There are limitations with the garages in this type of design. He can add landscaping in the front and those types of things, but he needs the square footage to fit the main floor bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and dining area. Community Development Director Trudgeon stated from staffs perspective, he would be concerned with an approval tonight that would include working out the details later. This is the 5th submittal. He thought Council was clear on things and it is still being struggled to grasp at the direction. If Council is going to consider approval it will need to be very specific. This is the consideration of preliminary plat and site plan, which allows substantial rights to development. The developer can be held accountable at final plat to what is required, but there would be vested rights involved. As much detail as is possible is needed; this has been attempted five times and is still being struggled with. He is not certain whether it is lack of trying or wanting to make sure there is approval before there is additional investment. Mr. Trudgeon advised before spending a lot of time talking about the particulars, a fundamental policy decision should be made on whether this land should be guided under a different land use. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment, as well as rezoning and deviations. Design is very important, but it all becomes a moot point if the Council is not considering the land use and zoning change. Mayor Gamec commented basically any commercial use could be located on this site. His feeling is that something like this fits far better than a commercial use. It has been a difficult piece to deal with, and in most cases people did not want commercial coming. back there. He requested Councilmember Strommen to comment further regarding the garage doors. Councilmember Strommen explained the garage doors dominate the design of these buildings in the front. She understands the applicant's comments about the limitations of the site, which is what the Council has been trying to get at with the staggering of the buildings, landscaping, and architectural elements. These same things are still being discussed and this is the fifth submittal. It may not be appropriate to rezone this if the site is so limited that they cannot get the product that is desired. City Council I April 10, 2007 Page 8 or 20