06-28-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He noted that the Planning Commission had indicated that the Council may wish to make a specific recommendation, or let staff and the applicant agree to the details. Ericson stated that the Planning Commission's primary concern was that a visual separation exist between the applicant's property and Woodlawn Terrace, as there had been problems in the past with traffic driving through that area of the property. He stated that the reason there was nothing more specific at this time was that it was dependent on whether a portion of the landscaped area may be utilized for the drainage plan. He added that the Council could make a specific recommendation, or could allow staff and the applicant to work out the details. Council Member Marty stated that he would be comfortable with that, and noted that the four- plex development presently under consideration was depicted on the left side of the site -plan. Ericson stated that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the second four-plex development at their next meeting, and that the Development Review for that project would go before Council on June 28. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To adopt Resolution No. 5430, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a Four -Unit Multiple Family Residential Dwelling to be located at 7623 — 7629 Woodlawn Drive, as Requested by Applicant, Mike Juaire, Representing PMJ Group, Inc.; Planning Case No. 555-99, with Stipulations. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. E. Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance 630, Right of Way Management City Administrator Whiting stated that Council had reviewed the Right of Way Management Ordinance at the previous Work Session. He stated that the ordinance had been part of the discussion regarding the possibility of granting a second gas franchise in the community. He noted that passage of this type of ordinance required two readings, and that a public hearing for the second reading had been approved for the next Council Meeting on June 28. He stated that the Council had agreed to discuss this item, along with discussion regarding the Franchise Agreement, at the next Work Session on June 21. He stated this was the first reading of the ordinance, and noted that changes could come at either of the next two meetings. Council Member Marty requested that Page 2, first sentence last paragraph, be corrected to indicate "a crowded condition in the subsurface," and the omission of one of the redundant phrases "without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities" in the last sentence. He requested clarification regarding the meaning of the acronym LGU as indicated in Items D and E of the third page. City Administrator Whiting stated the meaning was "Local Government Unit." Council Member Marty requested clarification to Page 9, Subdivision 3, which indicates "The Delay Penalty shall be established from time to time by City Council resolution," and asked if this referred to individual, specific projects. City Attorney Long stated that this was in regard to establishing penalties for any delayed projects during a specific time frame. He explained that if a penalty were set for the calendar year of 1999, that would be the penalty for the entire year, and that this statement grants the right to update that penalty as needed. C A\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\6-14-99.CC