04-26-2000 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council April 26, 1989 Centre Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the proposal for preliminary Place plat, variance for road length and conditional use permit for Centre Place submitted by Boosalis /ROI. Agenda Item Mo. 6 Fahey reported that the Council had previously approved a PUD for the Rice at C Center which included the development of an additional building to the north similar to the strip center already in existance. The PUD also included a residential development behind the animal clinic. Fahey reported that the developer is proposing a 14,000 square foot retail center along the same setback line as the existing center, in addition to a 1,200 square foot free - standing building set closer to Rice Street. The 14,000 square foot building would have an 80 foot setback from the northern property line, and the free - standing building would be setback 40 feet from Rice Street and 50 feet from the northern property line. Fahey reported that the City Planner has expressed concern about the circulation for traffic. Fahey reported that the residential portion of the development has also been modified from what was previously 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 reported that in the Planner's report he indicated that the parking proposed on the north side of the retail center may not he necessary, and he would prefer that it was eliminated and the area landscaped. Rlesener reported that the City previously only granted preliminary approval to the conditional use permit and rezoning which was requested, and that the City Attorney had been instructed to draft an ordinance reflecting the Council's desire to rezone the property. The City 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 property. Boosalis, the developer, reported that they have portions of the property under purchase agreement. Boosalis reported in response to a question from Scalze, that the existing house on County Road C, which had been in the path of the second access, would be purchased by his firm and would be rented out, rather than demolished or moved as under the original proposal. Boosalis reported that he has made chances in the proposal since the Planning Commission meeting in response to the City Planner's concerns. The City Planner reported that after discussion of the concerns raised in the page 147