CC_Minutes_2009_0817 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 17, 2009 Page 8 Councilmember Pust advised that she still had concerns related to the preliminary nature of the plat at this time; however, recognized the developer's request from a business standpoint. Councilmember Pust expressed concern that the City take this action and create a precedent that would enable a future developer to seek similar remedies. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion and preliminary plat, noting that the developer would still be required to come back before the City Council for final plat approval that would be recorded against the property. Mr. Hall noted that the building could not vary and appearance and materials would need to remain consistent, and should provide a level of assurance for the City Council. Mr. Hall advised that the lender wouldn't look at the final plat; but based on the preliminary plat would provide a loan commitment, and when the project closed after the building was completed, the plat line would need to be where proposed by the developer. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing. Nays: None. Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10743 entitled, "A Resolution Approving an Amendment to PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT #1375 (Attachment K), Applewood Pointe at Langton Lake (PF07-006);" (said agreement identified as Attachment J to the Request for Coun- cil Action dated August 17, 2009) as approved September 15, 2008 and revised August 17, 2009. Discussion included conditions of the PUD Agreement for Phase I and Phase II respectively; clarification by City Attorney Anderson that the Agreement makes clear that nothing other than the proposed project, with plans and specifications as submitted, can be constructed on Lot 2 (Phase II). Councilmember Pust advised that, while she voted against the original plan, the affect of phasing this project is more palatable, and opined that if the project were finalized at Phase I, it would serve the community better. Councilmember Roe expressed concern with the Phase II documents that were undated, and whether they were consistent with original documents as submitted with the original PUD Agreement. Mr. Lloyd noted that staff was allowing a placeholder in the amended PUD Agreement for updated documents for Phase II as necessary; noting that existing improvements for Phase I may have a slightly different appearance but would ba- sically be consistent with those originally submitted.