08/22/1994 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1994 submission and the applicants attempt to respond to the staff recommendation. In both cases the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the PDO and requested that the developer submit a R -1X preliminary plat. Mayor Reinert asked about Lot 11, Block 3 and Lot 7, Block 4 which fall below 12,000 square feet as does Lot 5, Block 5 and Lot 13, Block 5. He asked which lot had to be re -adjusted. Mr. Brixius said Lot 3, Block 3. The only area where staff is recommending flexibility are areas impacted by wetlands and lot width. Mayor Reinert said he would also like to see a plan for phasing the development of the lots. This should help to level development and get rid of the peaks and valleys in home building. Mr. Kirk Corson representing Hokanson Development responded to the concern about phasing the project. He explained that because the lots are going to be more expensive, he anticipated that the lots will not sell fast. Mr. Corson said that it would be in the best interest to Hokanson Development to build the development in phases possibly even four (4) phases. He noted that the area north of Holly Drive will be the first phase and the area south of Holly Drive will be divided into at least two (2) and possibly three (3) phases. Mayor Reinert asked Mr. Corson if it would be possible to prepare a phased development plan similar to Mr. Uhde's plan. This can be made a part of the developer's agreement. Mr. Corson said that would be no problem. Council Member Elliott moved to adopt the SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 14 - 94, Rezoning Trapper's Crossing to a PDO. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Council Member Bergeson noted that the Planning and Zoning Board never reviewed the plat with 115 lots. He noted that the plat started with 127 lots and this number was reduced by staff asking for changes which resulted in 115 lots. Normally in a case such as this, the revised plat would have gone back to the Planning and Zoning Board for a review of the revised plat. However, because of the time constraint in the law, the revised plat did not go back to the Planning and Zoning Board. Because of the time constraints, the City Council had been asked to consider the revised plat without a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board. The City Council must now make a decision on the revised plat based on staff input only and the City Council can only do the best based on what is before them. Council Member Bergeson noted that earlier the City Council was criticized for moving forward with the revised plat, however, there was no choice because the law required action by the City Council at that time. The City PAGE 18 • 1 1 1