Laserfiche WebLink
ITEM 2 <br />• <br />E <br />~'t was moved, seconded and carried that phis procedure be rec- <br />ommended for approval with the following change. Rather than <br />have the developer prepare final development plans for approval <br />at a City Council public hearings' he preliminary,devel'opment <br />plans would be approved or disapproved by the City Council at <br />a public hearing subsequent to the,Planning Commission public <br />hearing.' The'..: developer.. would still be required to submit.final <br />development`plansto'the City Council. These would be reviewed <br />by city staff for-conformance with the preliminary development <br />plan and then approved by the'City Council at a public-meetincr, <br />It was 31so noted under triis motion that the` ti..,e frames pre-• <br />seated in the draft should be studied carefully and perhaps,re- <br />vi_sed. The scale_cal.Zed for on some of .the submittals should <br />also be reviewed.: <br />It was moved, 'seconded and carried to indicate to the Cit~7 <br />Council that the Planning Commission sees no objection to the <br />subdivisions of the Julia S. Lindi ~property as presented. <br />It was moved, econded and carried to :recommend-that future sub- <br />division proposals for this property be handled directly by the <br />City Council without referral to the Planning Commission.' <br />r <br />