Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council :Minutes <br />November 21,2005 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz stated he would like to see this plat go back. to the Planning <br />Commission for further review. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Leo Offerman stated there were some unresolved issues regarding <br />wetlands, city engineer's comments not addressed, and nonconforming lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated a four-fifths vote was needed for the land use amendment and a <br />Councilmember suggested this item be continued to tonight until there was a full Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Motin stated this item was 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 drawings that take into account staff/Commission/Council comments). <br /> <br />Mr. 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 would be <br />taking additional right-of-way for a frontage road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Farber questioned the amount of land use available for any commercial or <br />residential development. <br /> <br />Mr. Maurer stated he has reviewed the revised drawings and Mr. Pacheco has addressed <br />many of the issues raised by the Planning Commission. He stated many commercial projects <br />have power line and wetland issues that have been worked around. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz stated he would be voting against this project as the Planning <br />Commission did not get a full chance to review the plat. He stated he is not opposed to the <br />project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Gumphrey concurred <br /> <br />Councilmember Farber concurred and stated the Planning Commission should be allowed <br />to have their concerns resolved. <br /> <br />Mr. Beck stated this item needs to be voted on by the City Council by November 24,2005. <br />He stated the applicant would need to agree to an extension. <br /> <br />Mr. Pacheco questioned the issues. He stated he thought they were addressed with Planning <br />Commission and staff. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing explained to the applicant that the city needs his written approval to extend <br />the 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 />Mr. Pacheco requested the Council change the land use at this meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmember 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 want to leave the land use <br />designation as commercial. <br />