01-13-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OKONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 9,2002 10. 002-2789/02-2840 Dahlstrom Development LLC, **2550” Wayzata Boulevard H^est—Final Development Plan Approvals—Continued GafTron stated they had received a letter from Mn/DOT that suggested they might go through parallel processes with review of the plat and the request for reconveyance in permits, and that the City should follow up with that. Staff did not believe there were issues that cannot be resolved with Mn/DOT, but if for some reason, they refuse the reconveyance and permits, the development would then need to change again. The MCWD was, however, the most concerning issue. Sansevere asked the applicants why the wording of the approval was so important, when the developer’s backers were surely well versed in such matters. Johnston stated that they would like to remove the word conceptually to convince their bankers that the City supports the project and the project is moving forward. Barrett stated that the issue was that there were blanks in the resolution regarding conditions of approval for a variety of issues. If Council felt they could work out most issues, there remained the issue of making it perfectly understood that the MCWD had to make approvals as a condition of the City’s approval, which he felt the draH did not do adequately. Sansevere asked if a letter from the City explaining why they only granted conceptual approval and stating that the City does, in fact, support the project would help the applicants. Barrett felt a letter giving endorsement of the plan would be acceptable. Gaffron stated that the resolution before Council went a long way toward addressing all of their concerns. He stated they could grant approval subject to staff bringing back a resolution that addressed all the issues under discussion, which had been done in the past. Council could grant approval subject to the adoption of a resolution in January assuming the Watershed District and engineering issues have been resolved by that time. Barrett stated that was acceptable. Johnston stated that would help them. Murphy moved, and White seconded, to approve the language of the Draft Resolution and Rexoning Ordinance with final adoption of the Draft Resolution and Rezoning Ordinance to be withheld until the MCWD approval is granted and the engineering issues are resolved, and staff will return with a final resolution in January that details the changes. Sansevere slated he did not see a difference between the terms adopt and approve. Barrett stated they were creating a distinction by approving the language, but not adopting the resolution. Sansevere stated he would prefer the letter of support. Mayor Peterson asked the applicants if they accepted the motion. Kendra Lindahl stated that she was confused by the addition of “language” to the motion. Barrett stated it was to