Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning <br />Page Five. <br />Mr. Prokop noted that sometime in early 1980, the P &Z had agreed to make their <br />decisions based on how the Comprehensive Plan related to the request. He <br />pointed out several decisionsfor denial that had been handed down since then. <br />Based on these actions, he was in favor of the motion. <br />Mr. Bathke said he would like to seellspecial use permit dealt with by the <br />Court. He did not feel a special use permit was correct and would therefore <br />agree with the motion. He did not feel all information was in at this time <br />and felt it should be dealt with as a rezoning. <br />Mr. Doocy agreed with Mr. Johnson in that this Board is trying to conform to <br />the Comprehensive Plan and felt there are other areas in the City that are <br />capable of this type of construction. The enviou ent is another of his <br />concerns. <br />Mrs. Schwankl disagreed with the motion because there is a real need for this <br />type of construction and that the developer had complied with all requests <br />of this City. <br />Mr. Heath also agreed with Mr. Johnson. The motion passed with five persons <br />voting in favor of the motion, Mrs. Schwankl voting against the motion and <br />Mrs. Klaus abstaining. <br />This will be heard by the City Council on Monday, January 12, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. <br />The meetingT:was adjourned. <br />• <br />A motion was made to request the City Council to verify the legality of the <br />special use section of Ord. #56. This motion was passed. <br />Motion was made by MR. Doocy. Motion was seconded by <br />• <br />