Laserfiche WebLink
Motion Failed. Voting Yes: Commissioners Johnson, Kociscak, and Reeve. Voting No: <br />Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Brauer and Watson. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he does not object to the project but is concerned about the language of <br />the ordinance. He stated his preference to consider this development concept without the need <br />for a blanket ordinance. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon stated this is drafted as a conditional use permit so the Planning <br />Commission can look at the specifics and consider approval or denial based on the project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson agreed that judgment would be exercised in that consideration and if the <br />Planning Commission finds a problem they can change the ordinance. He stated the controls <br />would still be provided. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he is not sure the numbers add up. He stated the ordinance is <br />written with 50% greenspace so this would gain 10% greenspace but the density would increase <br />from 1 O-units to 16-units. He noted that another project could come in with 50% greenspace. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated that would result in gaining a higher quality building than <br />could be expected under other parameters. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he agrees with Chairperson Nixt that the current language is rather <br />vague. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer asked if there is another way to work this. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon explained that a PUD is typically a way to do a development that is <br />slightly different than ordinance proscribes and provides some flexibility with issues such as <br />building design. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked the developer if they could come back with a PUD. <br /> <br />Mr. McGee stated they discussed with the Planning Commission the best route to take and this is <br />their third meeting so time is a concern. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson noted that if the Council adopted this ordinance, it would be January or <br />February before it would be effective. <br /> <br />Mr. McGee stated if a PUD is required, then that is what they would do. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that with a PUD there are findings of fact to support that decision on a <br />case-by-case basis and is more regimented than an ordinance process. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 7, 2002 <br /> Page 15 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />