Laserfiche WebLink
MINLITES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 25, 1995 <br />Bienke replied that if units are removed, the impetus <br />for the developer to complete the project is not there. <br />Research was done on the type of floor plans that would <br />meet market needs, and both ends of the range were <br />included in order to add variety to the project. The <br />intention was to develop something at both the upper <br />and lower ends to address different price points. <br />Morelan asked if one of the structures were eliminated <br />and the buildings spread apart, would the project work <br />financially. <br />Bienke replied that it would not. <br />Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 95-1-25 - APPROVING THE INTERIM PLANNED <br />UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE OWNER-OCCUPIED <br />BUILDING ON A LOT, AS WELL AS PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR <br />EIGHT (8) OFFICE BUILDING SITES AS REQUESTED BY REAL <br />ESTATE MASTERS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE <br />RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNER, CITY ENGINEER, AND <br />PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />The foregoing resolution <br />Ayes (4) LaValle, Scalze, <br />Nays (0). <br />Abstentions (1) Pedersen. <br />was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Fahey, Morelan. <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />CUP TO MOVE Fahey opened the public hearing to consider an <br />A HOUSE - application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an <br />256 TWIN existinq house to be moved onto a lot at 256 Twin Lake <br />LAKE TRAIL Trail as requested by Jason and Tia Graf. The Council <br />was informed that Mr. and Mrs. Graf have withdrawn <br />their application due to restrictions that the <br />Watershed has placed on the filling of the lot. <br />Fahey was concerned about what was best for the <br />community in this situation, and recommended that the <br />Council adopt a moratorium on moving existing houses <br />into the City until the ordinance can be reviewed. <br />Fahey pointed out that the house which was proposed to <br />be moved to Twin Lake Trail simply was not compatible <br />with the neighborhood. In an instance such as this, <br />the burden should not be placed on the existing <br />neighbors to fight the proposal. The burden should be <br />11 <br />