CC MINUTES 02242009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 24, 2009 Page 5 analysis for Lot B. There was also concern that the City may be in the position where the clock is running and would not have control of the process. 4 Mr. David Lutz, General Counsel for The Wirth Companies, addressed the City Council and 5 stated he did not attend the Planning Commission meeting last Tuesday due to 6 miscommunication. He had been working with the Planning Commission over the last couple of 7 months on the lot split, suggestions were made, and the application was tabled several different 8 times. He was playing email and phone tag with staff. Due to administrative delays the revised 9 materials were not finished until last Wednesday. Mr. Lutz stated it was the intention of his client 10 to take the recommendation of the Planning Commission and make these two lots conforming, 11 and to have the parking analysis completed, which has been done. At this point he believes they 12 have everything together and it has been presented and included in the Council's material. If 13 Council is of the opinion that more time is needed for analysis, his client is willing to table this 14 for another month and meet with the Planning Commission. He stated under the ordinance the 15 City is allowed 120 days to rule on a lot split. He stated his client would like to get this 16 accomplished. He is working under a window of time; there is currently no financing on this lot 17 and his client is in the process of new financing. It will be more difficult to get a lender to release 18 a portion of a lot once financing is in place. 19 20 Councilmember Thuesen questioned why the client did not attend the Planning Commission 21 meeting. Mr. Lutz replied it was his mistake. 22 23 Mayor Pro Tem Stille requested a summary of the legal opinion on the application. City Attorney 24 Gilligan explained the letter included in the Council's packet is in reference to an earlier 25 application where a line was drawn just north of the existing building creating a nonconforming 26 situation. His recommendation was that the application should be denied. With the current 27 proposal the applicant has moved the lot line further north. His understanding is that the 28 requirement under the code for parking is 91 spaces, and the revised application would have 92 29 spaces according to where the line is drawn. The plat would now be conforming, other than a 5- 30 foot setback for parking under the code which would need to be complied with when the lot is 31 developed. 32 33 Mayor Pro Tem Stille inquired about the status of the 60 -day rule. City Attorney Gilligan replied 34 with a subdivision the 60 -day rule does not apply; it is a 120 -day rule. The application was 35 submitted in December; the expiration of the 120 -day timeline would be April 22, 2009. He 36 noted a public hearing was held at the January meeting and was continued to the February 37 meeting, so the public hearing was held on this application. If the Council decides to refer the 38 application back to the Planning Commission he would recommend re- noticing the public 39 hearing on the application. 40 41 Mr. Lutz stated he is happy to answer any questions. He feels his client is being penalized for 42 him missing a meeting; he did not think the application was included on the February Planning 43 Commission meeting agenda. 44