Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 <br />Upon motion by Blesener, seconded by LaValle, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOI_ UTION NO. 2003-9-272 -APPROVING THE PROPERTY <br />L INE ADJUSTMENT AT 2444 AND 2446 McMENEMY ROAD <br />REQUESTED I3Y TIIERESE CH] E73ECK AND GLEN HAGEMAN <br />SU73.IECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS <br />OF THE CITY PLANNER A,S~ OUTLINED IN HIS REPORT DATED <br />SEPTEMBFR 2, 2003 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (5) Montour, LaValle, Fahey, Blesener, Anderson. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />REZONING - Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the request for rezoning from <br />PARK STREET General Business (B-3) to Single Family Residential (R-1) or Medium <br />PROPERTY - Family Residential (R-2) Lots 1 through 4, Block 7, North Heights located <br />TORKELSON on Park Street to accommodate the development ofeither asingle-family <br />DEVELOPMENT home or a duplex. It was noted that the City Planner recommended <br />COMPANY approval of the rezoning to R-1. The Planning Commission has <br />recommended denial of the rezoning request. <br />Pat Tucito, Land Holding Group, reported that she is the owner of the <br />property and has it under purchase agreement with Torkelson <br />Development Company. Tucito noted that the City Planner recommended <br />in favor of the rezoning. Tucito felt that either R-1 or R-2 zoning was an <br />appropriate transitional zoning for this area, and did not believe this would <br />be a spot zoning. Tucito disagreed with retaining Park Street as an <br />arbitrary line maintaining commercial zoning on the west and residential <br />on the east. Tucito felt that the rezoning was in compliance with the land <br />uses for the area that are outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br />Tucito felt that without the rezoning, Land Holding would end up with a <br />small parcel that would be difficult to develop given the wetland issues on <br />the site. Tucito further noted that prior to the sale of the adjacent parcel to <br />Montanari Homes for townoffice development, the Council had agreed to <br />an R-2 zoning for that property and this one as well. <br />Anderson asked about the comments at the Planning Commission meeting <br />about a 50-foot setback from the edge of the wetland. The City Planner <br />replied that the City's rear yard setback requirement is 30 feet. However, <br />given there is a wetland on this property, a Watershed permit would be <br />2 <br />