CC MINUTES 01221985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- plan, for a public hearing on those two items, and, if it ' s ready, review of the final plan, which would not -require a public hearing. All three steps could be considered by the Planning Commission at its next meeting and the Planning Com- mission could make a recommendation on those three steps to the Council., accord- ing to the City Attorney. Mr. Soth discussed one other pertinent detail regarding the Kenzington project. In the ordinance, a part of the detail plan is the final plat of the property. He stated that that is most applicable to a P. U.D. where streets are being laid out and so forth. In this particular case, he stated that the Council may want to consider granting a variance and not require a final plat and that it would be up to the developer whether he wants to plat it or not. Mr. Soth pointed out that the legal descriptions of that property are long and cumbersome and since it is a condominium which is going to •be built, once a condominium is filed, the descriptions will no longer be needed, so neither the developer nor the City would be burdened with them. He stated that this might be something the Planning Com- mission would want to consider as a fourth item with the other three previously enumerated. The Planning Commission could consider all four of those items at the February 19th meeting, as the Council also could at their meeting of February 26th. In response to Councilman Ranallo's queries, Mr. Soth stated that this P.U.D. concerns only Phase I and that .the final plan can be changed, but only by Council action. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Council , at a recent workshop, discussed overall density, but density for Phase I only. Commissioner Sjorklund was very concerned that Arkell Development had already sent out letters indicating there were changes in the Kenzington' s plans and that thesetchang.es had been approved, when in fact they had not. He feels that -Arkell -has been "economically blackmailing the City by saying things cannot progress if they (Arkell ) does not get this or does not get that". Councilman Enrooth responded to these charges by saying the Council should have had the procedures set forth prior to beginning the process and that there was now overraction to details which should have been understood before the process began. I The City Attorney stated that the final plan must be submitted to the Planning Commission, however, it has never been to that body nor the Council . Although a public hearing i.s not required for the final plan, Mr. Soth suggested perhaps one should be held and the amendments to the concept and detail plans could be considered at the same time. Everyone, then, would have had the opportunity to review the plan. i Mayor Sundland agreed with the City Attorney that to publish a hearing would be a good idea and Councilman Ranallo commented that that might curtail the feeling that somebody is acting before the process gets into motion. Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to publish and mail to property owners within 350 feet 'a notice of hearing for the Planning Commission at their February 19, 1985 meeting to consider approval of the amendments to the concept plan and the detail plan for Phase I of the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project. Motion carried unanimously. ,