Laserfiche WebLink
plan, that would have to go through <br />the normal City process of review by <br />the Planning Commission and final <br />consideration by the City Council. <br />I would not consider the comments <br />tonight to be binding upon the <br />Council in respect to that final <br />action. Is that your understanding, <br />Sir? <br /> <br />Prouty: <br /> <br />No, that's not my understanding. My <br />understanding was that, and this was <br />what was expressed to us by the City <br />after the last meeting, if a member <br />of Council, who had made the motion <br />or voted against it, asked that this <br />be invited for reconsideration, that <br />that was a process for this to have <br />reconsideration at this time. Is <br />that the case? That was the premise <br />on which we came to this meeting. <br />That was the basis on which the City <br />used to reconsider "Sled Hill". Is <br />that correct? <br /> <br />Brand: <br /> <br />As far a I remember, that is <br />correct. <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />Silver: <br /> <br />I did not understand that there was <br />a desire to reconsider the previous <br />action. The Council has <br />reconsidered previous denials. In <br />those instances, the changes in the <br />plan were not substantive for major <br />changes in the plan. I don't know <br />whether that's the case here or not, <br />because I'm not that familiar with <br />the specifics of the plan. <br /> <br />The changes that we've made in <br />response to what's been raised in <br />Plan A are not substantive. There <br />has been a reduction of one (1) unit <br />and the addition of parking at both <br />entrances, as requested. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />I see a difference between this plan <br />and "Sled Hill". With "sled hill" <br />we had a formal subdivision plat to <br />look at. This is just basically a <br />sketch. The issues I raised, both <br />in this meeting and, previously, I <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />