Laserfiche WebLink
r � , <br />MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council <br />FROM: Building Inspector <br />DATE: March 15, 1984 <br />SUBJECT: DEVELOPMrNT REQUEST OF F.M.L., INC. FOR <br />2740 HIGHWAY 10 <br />Attached is a letter from F.M.L., Inc. requesting that the <br />City consider approving a development. This particular <br />development was reviewed by the City during the Spring and <br />Summer of 1981 and was formally approved by resolution by <br />the City Council on July 27, 1981. The developer at that time, <br />Frank M. Langenfeld and Sons Construction, Inc., did not follow <br />through with the necessary approval documents and construction <br />never occurred. The previous approval of July 27, 1981, did <br />include development agreement considerations of stirm water <br />management and, at that time, Resolution No. 983. Also <br />attached for your review is a site plan of the original proposal. <br />The proposed project requested will be almost three years old <br />in terms of previous approval. At the very least, approvals <br />from both Rice Creek Watershed District and the County for <br />access would have to be reviewed for current status. In addition, <br />the adoption of a new Zoning Code could place different require- <br />ments (staff has not reviewed the specifics) on the proposal. <br />The question then would be would staff just review the proposal <br />for its current status with today's existing Codes and other <br />agency approvals or would it be the Council's direction to have <br />the matter reviewed in its entirety, going back to the Planning <br />Commission and City Council. In any case, an additional <br />application for development should be made at this time with <br />expenses paid for any review that could take place. <br />RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend one of the following. <br />1) Staff require the developer to make application for develop- <br />ment, and require an application fee necessary to <br />cover staff 's review of the project to see if it is <br />current with today's City requirements and other agency <br />approvals. <br />2) Require the developer <br />necessary to cover the <br />Commission review and <br />Council. <br />SAR/bc <br />Attachments <br />to make application and pay fees <br />costs of staff review, Planning <br />recommendation to the City <br />