03-18-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

property with the owner. Cadwallader said he was not certain there would be a market for one level units at a higher price than the proposed development. Zisla responded that the rezoning would not be specific to the proposed project. If Cadwallader’s project fell though, it would open the site to other developments the City may not want on the site. Cadwallader stated he would have no problem with an R-2 zoning with a PRD overlay. Because of the type of unit we need to build, we cannot go with a density of 22 units. With less density, the prices would be too high for the target market. Zisla said there should be some compromise possible. Cadwallader said he asked the City for assistance with the project under a Tax Increment Financing project. Cadwallader said he has been creative in planning this project and has looked at other options, but this is the one that works for him. Zisla stated that the fact that Cadwallader is locked into a purchase agreement makes it difficult to deal with from a public policy standpoint. The City had no part in the negotiations and the Planning Commission cannot consider that because the price of the property between Cadwallader and the property owner. Baker asked Mattila about Option 3, Item 4, is that the landscape plan? Erny Mattila answered affirmatively. Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A REZONING R-1R-3B,: FROM TO BASED ON 1.the rezoning request being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation of single family residential for the subject site; 2.the rezoning of the subject site to R-3B allows for a more intensive development of the site than the R-1 district would afford. 3.The R-3B zoning would be a spot zoning. 4.An incomplete site plan submittal. O’Brien said that if the financing would work out and the developer could build fewer units it would be a good development. O’Brien said he felt there should be a creative way to work out the rezoning and was concerned about the wording in Item No. 2 of the resolution. Baker asked, if the property was rezoned to R-2 instead of R-3B, would the property have to be reposted. Mattila replied he wished he had legal counsel here but that he believed it would have to be reposted. Mattila said he would have to check with the City Attorney. O’Brien said he wanted to leave the door open to an R-2 zoning. Baker answered the request can only be continued as an R-3B request. Livingston asked, if the Planning Commission recommends denial of the request, can the developer come back with a more acceptable proposal? Mattila responded affirmatively. Zisla said he would like to approve the project, but he was disappointed that there are some issues here that prevent us from moving forward. Zisla stated he was not in favor of denying this request. This has been a long process for the applicant. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\03-18-97.WPD 8