CC_Minutes_2008_0915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 15, 2008 Page 10 Mr. Trudgeon responded that the Plat proposed to create two new lots, with one of those currently before the City Council, as part of the assisted living project; and the applicant's original plan to re-plat the parcel as part of the senior cooperative site, until the August 25, 2008 City Council meeting and becoming aware of ordi- nance language and the expired Preliminary Plat. Mr. Trudgeon advised that, at that point, it was staff's recommendation that it was best to combine both plats for presentation to the City Council for their approval; with the City Council having seen a Sketch Plan for the proposed assisted living facility, setting the stage for future approval. Mr. Trudgeon verified that there was no zoning change proposed for Lot 1, Block 1 at this time, but that would be heard with the next case on to- night's agenda. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, normally, code indicated submission of an ap- plication for rezoning with Preliminary Plat approval to ensure permitted uses; and presumed that this use would not be permitted in an R-1 zone; and again questioned why these items were not moving forward without procedural gaps. Mr. Trudgeon responded that staff was attempting to stay within the developer's 60-day review period and to accommodate the developer's desire to move for- ward. Further discussion ensued regarding reading of City Code, Section 1102.01 and applicable zoning indications and procedures; and confirmation by staff that the PUD Concept Plan is currently at the Planning Commission level, and status of the separation of the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning application at this point. Mayor Klausing sought advice from City Attorney Squires, from a legal stand- point, as to whether the City was acting consistently with code requirements for the second parcel, since it was zoned residential, and whether it was consistent with platting with the underlying zoning. City Attorney Squires advised that the developer was creating two lots, with un- derlying zoning on the second parcel being residential; and opined that the devel- oper wouldn't be creating an improper lot that doesn't meet standards. City At- torney Squires further opined, from his review of Chapter 11 of City Code, that code did not require simultaneous action; and that that approval of the Preliminary Plat first, recognizing that the parcel still needed to be rezoned to a different use, and recognizing current zoning, would remain consistent with code requirements. Councilmember Ihlan opined that more information was available for Block 1, Lot 1 rather than Lot 2; and that it would be helpful for her to get a sense of what the developer envisioned for the use, and whether there were any zoning issues of concern, or whether the proposed use was appropriate for a residential zone.