My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 1995 02 28
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
1994-1999 Planning Commission
>
1995 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 1995 02 28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2021 12:32:23 PM
Creation date
7/15/2021 12:14:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
in with a PUD some relief would be in order. I can't say that for sure without seeing the plan. <br />I think somewhere down the road when Mr. Bennet brings in a PUD we can look at the plan <br />and make sure that it relates to the adjacent properties in a proper manor so that hopefully your <br />interest will also be taken care of. <br />Paul Wood - If it is the desire of the Commission, in terms of giving us some direction as well <br />as the public, with what happens after this, we would be happy to carry forward a resolution <br />disapproving this to Council. However, if it is the Commissions desire to recommend another <br />motion that staff initiated an ordinance amendment to make residential applications mandatory <br />PUD we would be happy to do that. <br />Chairperson Boulet - It is the applicant's option to appeal this to the City Council and to go on <br />to seek approval of the rezoning in any event. Or to let it lapse there and come back with a <br />PUD. <br />Q. <br />A. <br />To Staff - If we deny the request now is he allowed to bring it back or is there a <br />period of time that he would have to wait? <br />Paul Wood - I can't answer that accurately at this time. <br />Motion made to vote on the resolution as stated. Resolution # 1, Series 1995, a resolution <br />approving the rezoning of a portion of the Fisher Subdivision. Motion seconded. <br />Roll Ca1I Vote: Jeffrey Litpon - No; Russ VanNostrand - No; Rex Renfrew - No; Tom <br />McAvinew - No; Bill Boulet - No. Resolution is disapproved by vote of 5 - 0. <br />C. McStain Ent., Centennial II - Single Family Homes - Resubmittal of <br />Preliminary/Final Plat and Preliminary/Final PUD Development Plan: <br />Chairperson opened the public hearing. <br />Commission Memhers Disclosures - All members visited the site. <br />Notice/Posting. Peter Kernkamp certified the public notice/posting. <br />Staff Presentation - Peter Kernkamp gave the staff report. <br />P/C Questions to Staff - There were none. <br />Applicant's Presentation - Tom Hoyt, President of McStain Enterprises. I do not want to go <br />through the entire history of this project. I just want to visit a little bit of how this plan <br />evolved to find a means to develop the property with out going down a legal avenue. The <br />essence of this plan evolved in negations with Mayor Davidson and Councilman Mayer. We <br />believe that this solution over comes many of the concerns that we heard from you and what <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.