03-18-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zisla stated we are not required to rezone the property. You are arguing as if you have the legal right to these things. Why not say R-2 sounds like a good option and go on? Cadwallader responded if that is what the Planning Commission chooses to do, okay. Cadwallader said he felt he had a “chip on his shoulder” because seven months ago when he started this process this was not mentioned. You may say this is not your problem, but I think it is. Zisla reminded Cadwallader said people have worked to try and get the project out of limbo. Cadwallader said he appreciated that, but Staff told him that he has been uncooperative. Zisla said he did not think that was what was said. Cadwallader said he has been told he was uncooperative. Cadwallader said he has gone to meetings and done everything he could. Cadwallader stated he may have been argumentative at times, but he did not feel that he had been uncooperative. The Council has been much more cooperative than the staff. Zisla said he did not think Cadwallader’s comments were appropriate and Staff has been helpful in this meeting and the other meetings. Are we going to on and on over an R-2 versus an R-3 zoning? Zisla said there may not be much support for an R-3 zoning. There is support for having a project on the site. Baker called for a vote on the motion. 5 Ayes - 2 Nays. Motion Carried. (Zisla and Knuth opposed.) SP-199/VN-309 CB Commercial Mattila stated we have a letter from the applicant requesting continuance. Mattila said he would like to point out that this item has been continued once already. The original application date was January 25, 1997. If we continue the request again, it will exceed the 60-day rule. Mattila stated, if the applicant wants to continue, they must waive in writing the statutory 60-day limitation rule. Baker asked if the applicant were present. No one responded. Zisla asked why they have requested continuance again. Mattila responded he did not know the reasons. Mattila said he received the letter by fax at the last minute. Livingston asked, if the Planning Commission were to deny the request, could CB Commercial reapply? Mattila answered affirmatively. Schmitz asked if there were a time limit between applications. Mattila answered he knew of no limit. Mattila said the only time limit he was aware of is that they would have six months to pull the building permit from the time of approval. PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. Motion by Knuth, seconded by Schiferl, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTIONS VN-309SP-199. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AND General Business LP-322 Kraus-Anderson/Champps Mattila reviewed the case report concerning a request to consider an application for site plan review to construct an addition onto the existing Champps restaurant. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\03-18-97.WPD 10