02-24-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Feb. 24, 1988 Schr•ier• Fahey outlined the pr•evious histor~y of the par~cel, noting that the PUD City r~ezoned the par~cel fr•om R-3 to R-2 in September~ of 1983 and in Amendment November~ of 1983 the Council approved a var~iance and conditional (Cont.) use per~mit to allow Schr•ier• to develop an 8-plex on the par~cel. Fahey questioned how long the Council was bound by the actions of a pr•evious Council, given the lapse of tiine since the 8-plex appr~oval. Fahey stated that it was his feeling that the cur~r•ent pr~oposal would impact mor•e substantially than the pr•evious one. Fahey pointed out the cur~r•ent proposal is for 8 units above-gr~ound, while the pr~evious 8-plex had 4 units below gr~ound and 4 units above ground. Fahey felt the Council should take a fr•esh look at the 8-plex pr•oposal and its impact on the r•esidential neighbor~hood. The City Attor~ney noted that the pr•evious Council action in November• of 1983 was to gr•ant a var~iance and conditional use per•mit, and both of these appr•ovals lapse if not acted upon within one year~. Fahey commented that he has discussed this with Mr•. Schr~ier~, who indicated that it was his under~standing that the 10 year• pr•ovision included in the PUD on his pr•oper•ty acr~oss the str•eet, applied on this par•cel as well. The City Flttorney noted that the PUD included only the legal description of the pr~oper~ty acr•oss the str•eet, nor•th of County Road C. The Attor•ney stated that it was his under•standing that the tr•iangular•-shaped par~cel was not included. Fahey noted that the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to appr•ove the PUD amendment. Fahey stated that he was not in this was an oppor•tunity for• the development of this par•cel. favor• of 8 units above-gr•ound and felt Council to take another~ look at the Mr•. Richar~d Schr~ier• indicated that it was his under~standing that he had 10 year~s to act on the development appr•oval gr~anted in 1983 for~ the tr~iangular• par~cel. Schr•ier• stated that he believed he had documentation of this. Fahey agr~eed that this matter of appr•ovals lapsing has just cone up, and suggested that the public hear•ing be tabled to give the City and Mr. Schrier an opportunity to research their records. However, Fahey stated that in r~esear•ching meeting minutes he did not believe that the tr~i angul ar• par~cel was i ncl uded i n the PUD for• Schr~i er~' s pr•oper•ty acr~oss the str~eet. Fahey noted that it takes four• affir~mative votes to amend a PUD, and he was not in favor• of doing so. 6lesener~ commented that he has discussed the matter• with Mr~. Schr~ier• and it is his belief that the variance and CUP granted Schrier in 1983 ar•e null and void. Dlesener~ indicated that he felt 8 units would be over~development of the par•cel. Blesener• felt the site should be developed with multi-family, however•, 8 units was beyond what the par•cel would accept. Paqe -5-