Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council IV11nutes <br />November 21, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />rVlayor I<linzing closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Counci1member Dietz stated he "\vould like to see this plat go back to the Planning <br />Commission for further rev-1.ew. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Leo Offerman stated there \vere some unresolved issues regarding <br />\vetlands, city engineer's comments not addressed, and nonconforming lots. <br /> <br />Ivfr. Clark stated a four-fifths vote was needed for the land use amendment and a <br />Counci1member suggested this item be continued to tonight until there was a full CounciL <br /> <br />Counci1member Motin stated this item \vas also postponed so that issues mentioned in the <br />October 17, 2005 minutes could be addressed (commercial viability, impact to east property <br />owners, revised dra\Vings that take into account staff/Commission/Council comments). <br /> <br />J:vIr. Pacheco handed out revised drawings and stated the site is difficult to develop <br />commercially as there are electrical easements through the property and the city \vould be <br />ta~g additional right-of-\vay for a frontage road. <br /> <br />Counci1member Farber questioned the amount of land use available for any commercial or <br />residential development. <br /> <br />1vfr. Maurer stated he has revie"Ted tlle revised drawings and 11r. Pacheco has addressed <br />many of the issues raised by the Planning Commission. He stated many commercial projects <br />have power line and wedand issues that have been worked around. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz stated he ,-vould be voting against this project as the Planning <br />Commission did not get a full chance to rev-ie\v the plat. He stated he is not opposed to the <br />project. <br /> <br />Councilmember GumphIey concurred. <br /> <br />Councilmember Farber concurred and stated the Planning Commission should be allo"Ted <br />to have their concerns resolved. <br /> <br />1vfr. Beck stated this item needs to be voted on by the City Council by November 24, 2005. <br />He stated the applicant v.rould need to agree to an extension. <br /> <br />1vfr. Pacheco questioned the issues. He stated he thought they "\vere addressed \v-1th Planning <br />Commission and staff. <br /> <br />Mayor I<linzing explained to the applicant that the city needs his ,-vritten approval to extend <br />tile timeframe on the land use amendment, the zone change, preliminary plat, and <br />conditional use permit. She stated the Council is not completely opposed to the change <br />from commercial to residential but would like to see some issues resolved. <br /> <br />1\1r. Pacheco requested the Council change the land use at this meeting. <br /> <br />Counci1member Dietz stated that all the items are tied together. He stated that if the issues <br />on this plat are not addressed satisfactorily, then the Council may \vant to leave the land use <br />designation as commercial. <br />