Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Reeve, to close the public <br />hearing for Cases #3 and #4. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Vice Chair Kociscak, Commissioners Johnson, Reeve, Sweet, and <br />Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Nixt and Commissioner Brauer. <br /> <br />The public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Vice Chair Kociscak called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at <br />8:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Motion by Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Reeve, to recommend that the City Council <br />adopt the Findings of Fact favorable to the developer relating to a request to rezone the proposed <br />plat of The Ponds from B-1 Business and R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 Single Family <br />Residential, R-3U Residential, and Multiple Residential. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Johnson commented that there is work we can do as a city to <br />develop procedures that are more objective. While we have a certain degree of influence on how <br />the developer works, we are operating within the ordinances. As long as the applicant largely <br />meets ordinance requirements, the City's decision is constrained. The residents are in better <br />shape as a result of the Council's previous action on this case. He stated that while he <br />understands the concerns of the citizens, he cannot reasonably say that this is so out of bounds <br />that it should be denied. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sweet stated she disagreed with his comments. She said many residents moved <br />here because of the attitudes about trees. She said that complying with bottom line numerical <br />rules doesn't mean it is acceptable. It is good to have people come in here that live in the area <br />and talk about how it affects their lives. This is the balance with the quality of life. She said she <br />is happy with the fact that it can be developed. The Planning Commission is here to help the <br />citizens work between the developer and the Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner Watson stated the neighborhood has their concerns but the developer is abiding <br />by the Comp Plan and has every right to develop as he wants. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson commented that in many respects, the developer has done better than the <br />Comp Plan. Commissioner Watson agreed. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Vice Chair Kociscak, Commissioners Johnson, Reeve, Sweet, and <br />Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Nixt and Commissioner Brauer. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commission Reeve, to recommend that the City <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 3, 2002 <br /> Page 11 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />