Laserfiche WebLink
Case #6: <br /> <br />Case #7: <br /> <br />Case #8: <br /> <br />Case #9: <br /> <br />Case #10: <br /> <br />Case #I 1: <br /> <br />[equest for Preliminary Plat Review of Alpine Acres; Case of Oak Creek <br />t luilders, Inc. <br /> <br />Request for Site Plan Review of Alpine Acres; Case of Oak Creek Builders, <br />Inc. <br /> <br />Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Case of Oak Creek Builders, <br />Inc. <br /> <br />l~troduce Ordinance to Rezone Property from R-1 Single Family to R-2 <br />Medium Density Residential; Case of Oak Creek Builders, Inc. <br /> <br />Request for Preliminary Plat Review of Alpine Acres 2"° Addition; Case of <br />Oak Creek Builders, Inc. <br /> <br />l~equest for Site Plan Review of Alpine Acres 2"0 Addition; Case of Oak <br />Creek Builders, Inc. <br /> <br />Associate Pl~nn6r Wald stated that the Council would need to make a motion to waive the 14 day <br />time frame }eqairement between the Planning Commission public hearing and City Council <br />action for Ca~es 6 and 10. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that he has concerns with the overall layout of the project and felt <br />that they wer~e mOving to fast. He stated that he would like to table action to allow for more time <br />to review thelcase. <br /> <br /> [ · <br />Motion by C .oun~!lmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to table action on Cases 6 <br />through 11 ~ase4l~ on the 14-day requirement and to allow for more time for the Council to <br />discuss the plojee, t at a work session. <br /> , <br />Further discUSsion: City Attorney Goodrich explained that if the motion passes the Council can <br />discuss the qievo!opment informally, but no decisions can be made. Councilmember Kurak <br />replied that the discussion would basically be to provide direction to the developer so that they <br />can address s}ame of the Council's concerns at the work session. Councilmember Cook inquired <br /> <br />as to why the <br />the developer <br />meeting was <br />meeting. As <br />rather than w <br />that the devel <br /> <br />development was being moved so quickly. Associate Planner Wald explained that <br />paint a $200 fee for a special Planning Commission meeting to be held. A special <br />sclxeduled, but there was no quorum so the case was not heard until the June <br />~ co~urtesy to the developer, staff added the case to the first Council meeting of June <br />aitiCg until the second meeting as typically occurs. Councilmember Elvig replied <br />>pe~ should be refunded the $200. <br /> <br />Motion was a[men, ded to direct staff to refund Oak Creek Builders, Inc. the $200 they paid to hold <br />a special Planping Commission meeting. <br /> <br />City Council/June 10, 2003 <br />Page 10 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />