Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />Ju ne 9 , 20 04 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Chair Schaps added condition number 11 to read use of a four-color scheme variation in <br />the exterior. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz noted applicant would not be able to build for a minimum of six months and <br />asked if this would be tabled to their next meeting, how w ould this impact them. Mr. <br />Fuchs replied it came down to time and mone y and by delaying it it ultimately delayed <br />the decision. He offered to review all of th e conditions with staff and work with them. <br />He indicated by working with staff it would save time. <br /> <br />Chair Schaps noted he did not see they were going to lose much by continuing this for <br />one month. <br /> <br />Roger Hokanson, developer, stated they could not lose any more units and if they could <br />not redesign it in anyway, he could not develop this. He stated they could not keep <br />spending money on this. He stated he was hoping to get a lot more units when the land <br />was purchased and now that the City had rest ricted development, they needed the units <br />they were proposing. He stated changing the colors of the buildings were not an issue, <br />but by adding more blacktop he did not think the development would work. He stated if <br />guest parking was held against them, they could not meet the requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Smyser replied he understood it was the Board’s opinion that as long as they could <br />add guest parking, they could play with the impervious surface numbers. He stated from <br />a time standpoint, the probably of going to the City Council with a positive <br />recommendation was the important issue. He noted by adding guest parking, did not <br />necessarily mean losing a unit. However, he was comfortable with this being tabled for <br />one month also. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he did not think it would cost Mr. Hokanson that much money to have <br />this tabled for one month. He noted there was nothing lost or gained by flipping 13, 14 <br />and 15 to the opposite side of the street a nd by shifting 20 and 21 down would impact this <br />development either. Mr. Hokanson noted the outside units were th e most profitable and <br />sold the best. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty stated there were ways to work with this without eliminating a unit and <br />stated they would have a much better situat ion at Council if this was continued for one <br />month to work on the Board’s suggestions. He stated the refinements requested would <br />assist Council in their decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Hokanson stated if he agreed with Mr. Ra fferty’s suggestions and worked with staff, <br />could this be approved tonight . Mr. Rafferty replied he be lieved Mr. Hokanson’s verbal <br />word was good, but it was the Board’s prefer ence to see things in writing. <br /> <br />Mr. Hokanson stated if they redrew it per the Board’s suggestion and worked with staff <br />on it, why did they have to wait for the next meeting. Chair Schaps stated years ago, that <br />would have been the procedur e, but now the Board wanted to see the revised plans. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle stated he was not willing to give the plan a “rubber stamp” and he wanted to <br />see the plan again at next month’s meeting.