Minutes - Council - 06/10/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Further disc~'~ssi~n: Councilmember Cook inquired if there was any reason they could not discus the developr!en~ if they table action. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the Council can discuss the developtnen.t, but no motions can be made. Councilmember Cook inquired if the Council were to waive tl~e 14-day waiting period requirement could they proceed with action on all of the . r e cases. C~tyIAttbm y Goodrich replied yes. Councilmember Elvig explained that his concern with moving fom'ard is that they are moving projects very quickly and he was concerned they were settingia pieeedent and that they have only had three days to review such a large project. Councilme~ber [Kurak inquired if there was any concern with the 60-day rule. City Attorney Goodrich re~lied no. [ ; Motion carried. ,Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Elvig, Kurak, Cook, Pearson, and Zimmermani Voting No: None. City Admm~trator Norman suggested holding a work session on June 17th following Public Works Com&itt~;e meeting to discuss the development. Consensus o?th~, City Council was to hold a work session on June 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Councilmem~er Elvig stated that he likes what he has seen as far as the product is concerned and thought it w4ts aidevelopment that would fit into the community. His major concern is if they look at T.H.[~#4~ there is a townhome development that is very close to the road and with this developmentlthe~, are establishing a line of dwellings along a major arterial road. He understood that there Wi!l bo a 30-foot setback, but he did not feel that that was adequate to provide for the proper plantihgs~ buffer, etc. He thought that the town homes should be moved back from C.R. #5 to provid~ for!a more aesthetic look along C.R. #5. Mayor Game~ in~luired if the 30-foot setback was from the road right of way. Associate Plfinner Wald explained that the 30-foot set back is measured from the boundary line of the proper/y to~ the unit. It is a 90-foot setback from the center of the road. Councilmember Elvig stated that it seems as though the units are being pressed in very tightly and he was c~)nc~rned that some City ordinances may be driving some of that. The Council may need to provi[le for some lenience of their own ordinances to provide for a better layout. Councilmem~er Zimmerman inquired if the seven units per acre for medium density exclude the wetlands. : : Associate Plann~ Wald explained that medium density allows for up to seven units per acre excluding weIlanfls and roadway. The development as proposed is 6.3 units per acre. ; Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he was not in favor of changing the zoning to medium density on tl~is piece of property so he would not be voting in favor of the development. He thought the p3op ,e~ty was better fit for single family residential. City Council/June 10, 2003 Page 11 of 22