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