Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 14, 2004 <br />Page 5 <br />• those alternates. Mr. Fuchs pointed out where the additional parking could be placed in <br />those alternatives. <br />• <br />• <br />Ms. Lane stated it came down to how strongly they wanted to preserve the trees. She <br />noted if they used alternative 3, they could not preserve the trees. <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he agreed with Mr. Tralle. He indicated he was in favor of alternate 3, <br />because it was the cleanest of the proposals for site lines and it inserted guest parking <br />throughout the site instead of at one end. He stated he did not believe the trees would <br />survive the construction anyway in alternate 3. <br />Mr. Fuchs stated the proposal with the additional parking spaces substantially exceeded <br />the Code. He requested they consider their preferred option A because it met all of the <br />City requirements and it provided the separation needed between the two associations. <br />Mr. Hyden stated he concurred that alternate 3 was the appropriate option to look at. <br />Mr. Pogalz noted with option 3, he believed there would be less asphalt and therefore less <br />cost for the development. <br />Mr. Tralle inquired about the stub street concern raised. Mr. Fuchs stated their proposal <br />did not access the existing drive and at this time, they did not propose to access that stub <br />street. He noted they had had no discussions with Marshan Lake Townhomes and how <br />they desired to deal with this. He stated they were not proposing to block the access. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if there was any advantage to keeping the road, or would they be <br />willing to deed it to the other association. Mr. Fuchs stated he did not have an answer to <br />that question tonight. <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and was supported by <br />Mr. Root. Motion carried 5 -0. <br />Mr. Pogalz asked what the approval was going to be for, option A or alternate 3. Chair <br />Rafferty replied he understood this decision was up to the Board. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if the developer was in agreement with the conditions as outlined by <br />City staff. Mr. Fuchs replied they were aware of all of the conditions and agreed with <br />conditions 1 through 6, they did not agree with 7, they agreed with 8 and 9, and condition <br />10 they had already addressed on the revised plan. <br />Chair Rafferty asked staff how they should address condition number 7. Mr. Smyser <br />replied the Board's recommendation was appropriate, but it would be up to the City <br />Council to make the final decision. He stated it was not unusual, however, to have a <br />disagreement on park dedication. <br />Ms. Lane stated with alternate 3, they had not seen a drawing as to where the guest <br />parking was going to be located and she wanted to see a plan prior to approving the <br />development. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />