Laserfiche WebLink
C <br />t <br />CASE: 89-81, Item 4 on 7 7/02 Plannin Commission A enda <br />ITEM: Develop (cvicw 40 Unit Condominium Proposa <br />APPLICANT: Skyline Development Co. <br />LOCATION: 2908 Highway 10 <br />Legal: Auditor's Subdivision No. 89 <br />Lot 51 <br />SUMMARY 01" RE'QUEST <br />See attached letter from J;nucs DCBenedotr I'.R., dated May 26, 1902. <br />To summarize, the applicant is proposing to construct 5-8 unit <br />condominiums on the property. Ifc is applying to the City under <br />the P.U.D. chapter of the '!.Doing Code. <br />13ACKG1JOUND INFORMNI-ION <br />This project dates back approximately 3 years. Back in 1979, the <br />developer, George Halverson, requested City approval to construct <br />a 40 unit apartment complex. <br />sOn April 25, 1979, the Planning Commis - <br />ion recommended to the Council denial of the project. The reasons <br />for denial arc outlined in the minutes of April 25, 1979, On Septem- <br />ber nsi eras the City Council conceptually approved the projectOwith <br />5 considerations: <br />1) Adequate buffering and fencing for the single family <br />homes to the south. <br />2) Requirements of Resolution No. 983 be met. <br />3) Looped watermain. <br />4) Double access to the development (one of which could <br />be for emergency purposes only). <br />5) A 30 foot road easement be granted along the west <br />property line from Highway 10 to the property's south <br />lot line. (The easement can be used for private pur- <br />poses until such a time when a public road is constructed.) <br />Nothing substantial was done to the development until March 12, 1980, <br />when staff received a request from the developer to change the plan <br />from the 48 unit apartment complex to 48-52 condominium units. The <br />Council then felt that the issue be sent back to the Planning Commis- <br />sion for review. <br />On June 3, 19811 the developer, now Wayne Herr Construction Company, <br />went before the Planning Commission for development approval of a <br />40 unit condominium (5 buildings). Following considerable discussion, <br />the matter was tabled until information was received from the attorney <br />regarding state condominium laws and sketches from staff to provide <br />access to adjacent properties. <br />From June 3rd to the present, no additional information was presented <br />nor had any action been taken on the development proposal. i <br />