Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />March 25, 1997 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Mattila noted that Cadwallader indicated that 32 units would be the final option. <br />Cadwallader is attempting to renegotiate the purchase price of the corner lot which may <br />provide more flexibility in redesigning the project. Cadwallader requested some type of <br />design criteria preferred by Council. <br /> <br />Williams prefers consideration be made to retaining trees and achieving density needed <br />to make the project economically viable. Mattila is in agreement and noted HKG's <br />comments that the oaks not only add a great canopy but add to the corridor' character. <br /> <br />Fulton said if Council wishes a continuation, the City is required to respond within 60 <br />days of the application. The motion to continue should only be considered if the <br />applicant agrees in writing to waive the 60-day statutory time limit. Cadwallader would <br />be willing to waive the time limit, and asked if the Planning Commission needs to <br />review the proposal again. <br /> <br />City Attorney Charlie LeFevere said that being the footprint will not be increased and a <br />public hearing was held, it would not need to be brought back to the Planning <br />Commission. However, Council may prefer Planning Commission input. <br /> <br />Williams asked how the Councilmembers felt about considering the redesigned site plan <br />without Planning Commission input. Gunderman would prefer that it go back to the <br />Planning Commission. Williams asked if the Planning Commission could informally <br />review the new design. <br /> <br />Fulton asked if Cadwallader could present to the April 15 Planning Commission. <br />Cadwallader prefers an expedite method to resolve the issue. Fulton said special <br />meetings are difficult to arrange and asked if the issue could be reviewed on April 22. <br /> <br />Mattila said staff does not have a survey indicating tree locations in relation to the <br />proposed units and how the townhomes would be screened from adjacent land uses. He <br />asked that these items be added as a condition of continuance. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Larson, to CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF <br />REZONING AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS FOR R-141 AND LP-315 FOR <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND EVENTUAL REVIEW BY CITY <br />COUNCIL BASED ON: THE REZONING REQUEST BEING INCONSISTENT <br />WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF SINGLE <br />FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE SUBJECT SITE; INCOMPLETE SITE PLAN <br />SUBMITTAL; APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A NEW SITE PLAN WHICH TAKES <br />IN CONSIDERATION THE LOCATIONS OF TREES AS THEY SPECIFICALLY <br />RELATE TO THE SITE PLAN; APPLICANT TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE PLAN <br />SHOWING HOW THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE SCREENING <br />FROM ADJACENT LAND USES; AND APPLICANT AGREES TO WAIVE THE <br />60 DAY STATUTORY TIME LIMIT IN WRITING. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Mattila presented a site plan review to construct a 1,010 sq. ft. addition onto Champps <br />Restaurant located at the southeast corner of the Palmer Dr. and Silver Lk. Rd. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Rezoning Request <br />Cadwallader - R- <br />141/LP-3l5 <br />Report 97-070 <br /> <br />Champps Addition <br />Report 97-071 <br />