07/14/2004 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2004 Page 4 Chair Schaps added condition number 11 to read use of a four -color scheme variation in the exterior. Mr. Pogalz noted applicant would not be able to build for a minimum of six months and asked if this would be tabled to their next meeting, how would this impact them. Mr. Fuchs replied it came down to time and money and by delaying it it ultimately delayed the decision. He offered to review all of the conditions with staff and work with them. He indicated by working with staff it would save time. Chair Schaps noted he did not see they were going to lose much by continuing this for one month. Roger Hokanson, developer, stated they could not lose any more units and if they could not redesign it in anyway, he could not develop this. He stated they could not keep spending money on this. He stated he was hoping to get a lot more units when the land was purchased and now that the City had restricted development, they needed the units they were proposing. He stated changing the colors of the buildings were not an issue, but by adding more blacktop he did not think the development would work. He stated if guest parking was held against them, they could not meet the requirements. Mr. Smyser replied he understood it was the Board's opinion that as long as they could add guest parking, they could play with the impervious surface numbers. He stated from a time standpoint, the probably of going to the City Council with a positive recommendation was the important issue. He noted by adding guest parking, did not necessarily mean losing a unit. However, he was comfortable with this being tabled for one month also. Mr. Rafferty stated he did not think it would cost Mr. Hokanson that much money to have this tabled for one month. He noted there was nothing lost or gained by flipping 13, 14 and 15 to the opposite side of the street and by shifting 20 and 21 down would impact this development either. Mr. Hokanson noted the outside units were the most profitable and sold the best. Mr. Rafferty stated there were ways to work with this without eliminating a unit and stated they would have a much better situation at Council if this was continued for one month to work on the Board's suggestions. He stated the refinements requested would assist Council in their decision. Mr. Hokanson stated if he agreed with Mr. Rafferty's suggestions and worked with staff, could this be approved tonight. Mr. Rafferty replied he believed Mr. Hokanson's verbal word was good, but it was the Board's preference to see things in writing. Mr. Hokanson stated if they redrew it per the Board's suggestion and worked with staff on it, why did they have to wait for the next meeting. Chair Schaps stated years ago, that would have been the procedure, but now the Board wanted to see the revised plans. Mr. Tralle stated he was not willing to give the plan a "rubber stamp" and he wanted to see the plan again at next month's meeting. DRAFT MINUTES • • •