Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />Jan. 9, 1986 <br />Goff Mrs. Timmons suggested that the proposal he denied and that the <br />Construction developer come hack with a proposal of less density and with more <br />(cont.) consideration given to the single family homes to the west and <br />south. <br />The Planner pointed out that should the proposal he denied, the <br />matter could not be reconsidered for six months. The Planner also <br />felt that the Commission was jumping ahead by considering the design <br />before the rezoning. The Planner felt that the rezoning could be <br />approved subject to the quality of the design. The City would still <br />have control over the design. <br />DeLonais pointed out that the Commission has not indicated that they <br />were against the rezoning, the only concerns raised were over design. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff suggested that the matter be tabled and that the <br />neighbors come in and express their views to the Commission. <br />The Planner pointed out that if the Commission acts on the rezoning, <br />a public hearing will be held at Council level and then the Council <br />can act on the rezoning as well. In this way a lot of time will not <br />be spent on the design question, if the Council is not in favor of <br />the rezoning from the start. <br />Timmons asked how many units per acre are allowed under R -2 zoning. <br />The Planner replied that 8units per acre are allowed, but the <br />developer would still need a conditional use permit. <br />Timmons pointed out that only one neighbor is present. DeLonais <br />stated that the neighbors were informed of the meeting. <br />Mr. Goff requested that the Commission act on the rezoning and indicated <br />that he will lessen the density of the proposal. Goff pointed out that <br />the City would still have to act on the conditional use permit. <br />Mr. Davison stated that he was willing to vote on the rezoning to see <br />whether or not the Council will be in favor of the rezoning. Davison <br />agreed that this would save a lot of time. <br />Timmons felt that it was a good idea to look at the whole proposal. <br />Timmons also felt that the proposal needed to be reviewed a little <br />more, and pointed out that the City will live with the development <br />after the developer is gone. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff recommended that the Goff Construction application <br />for rezoning and conditional use permit be tabled so that the <br />developer can redesign his proposal and to give the neighbors an <br />opportunity to give the Commission input on this proposal. <br />Motion seconded by Mrs. Timmons. <br />Motion carried 6 - 1. Mr. Davison was opposed. <br />Page -4- <br />