04-26-89 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

raIPJUTES City Council April 26, 1989 Centre Fahey opened the public hearinq to consider the proposal for preliminary Place plat, variance for road lenc~th and conditional use permit for Centre Place submitted by f~oosalis/ROI. Agenda Item Plo. 6 Fahey reported that the Council had oreviously approved a PUD for the Rice at C Center which included the development of an additional buildinq to the nor•th similar to the str•ip center already in existance. The PUD also included a residential development behind the animal clinic. Fahey reported that the developer is proposinq a 14,O~Q square foot r•etail center• alonq the same sethack line as the existin~ center•, in addition to a 1,7_00 sqtaar•e foot fr•ee-standinp buildin~ set closer• to Rice Street. The 14,000 squar•e foot building would have an 8Q foot setback from the northern pr•oper•t,y line, and the free-standing huildin~ would be setback 40 feet from Rice Street and 5~ feet from the northern propert,y line. Fahey reporte~l that the City Planner has expressed concern about the circulation for traffic. Fahe.y r~epor•ted that the r~esi denti al por•ti on of the cievel opment has al so been modified from what was nreviously approved, in that rather than two accesses from County Road C, there is one proposed. Fahey pointed out that the cul-de-sac would require a variance, and the developer indicated that the second access would be difficult to improve since the property is marshy. Scalze r•epor•ted that in the Planner~'s vepor•t he indicated that the parkinq proposed on the north side of the retail center may not be necessar.y, and he would prefer that it was eliminated and the area landscaped. Rlesener reported that the City previously onl,y granted preliminary approval to the conditional use permit and rezoning which was requested, and that the City Attorney had been instvucted to draft an ordinance reflecting the Council's desir~e to r~ezone the pr•operty. The C.ity Planner replied that this was correct, and that the ordinance was never adopted by the City. Collova pointed out that there had been a question of ownership of the pr~operty. ~3oosalis, the developer, reported that the,y have portions of the prooerty under purchase agreement. Boosalis reported in response to a question fr•om Scalze, that the existing house on County Road C, which had been in the path of the second access, would be ourchased b,y his fir~m and would be rented out, rather than demolished or moved as under the oriqinal proposal. Boosalis reported that he has made changes in the proposal since the Planning Commission meetinn in r•esponse to the City Planner•'s concer•ns. The Cit,y Planner reported that after discussion of the concerns raised in the Paqe -7-