CC 10-28-1968 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. .. Minutes of Regular Counci I Meeting - October 28, 1968 Page Two The representative stated that C. D. C. would like the road ready for next summer. Atty. Courtney stated that when roads were dis- cussed at the time of the water tower meeting. C. D. C. didn't feel the road was necessary for their purpose. Atty. Courtney recommended that matter be referred to the Plannin~ Commission to determine If a vi Ilage need exists for the road. - Mayor Bjorndahl felt the plat previously submitted showing the roads . would be adequate for presentation to the Planning Commission. He also felt calling the one road extension "Victoria" could present problems, but this could be considered later. Matter referred to the Planning Commission for its meeting on Monday, . November 3, 1968, and also to Atty. Courtney. Clerk requested to send copy of the Control Data letter of request to Atty. Courtney. C. G. Rein - Case 68-21 Mr~-C~-G~-Reln--and-Mr~-Milton Gray, his attorney, were present. Councilman Hollenhorst reported from the Planning Commission regarding the public hearing, stating that many residents were present In opposition and that a petition of opposition with the names of 186 people was also presented. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the special use request to al low construction of multiple dwellings for the following reasons, as listed in the Planning Commission minutes, dated October I , 1968: 1. The proposed use is not In harmony with the general purpose and intent of the existing housing polley. 2. The proposal does not show satisfactorily why this parcel cannot be utilized successfully as intended with single family dwellings. 3. The commission Is of the opinion that a serious traffic problem would be created with the proposed project, uncommon to that normal traffic load expected of a neighborhood of single family dwellings. 4. Adequate site planning.was not provided, the Quality of construction, based on his estimated costs, was Questionable, and the verbal description of the con- struction would not meet the VillaQe BuildinQ Code. ~~'I...~v, ,,1 Informed the counci I tha; the vi Ila~e planner had requested a site plan; he does not know if this has been sub- mitted, but felt this should be in before the council considered the matter. Mr. Rein Informed the council that he had read the Planning Com- mission minutes, but felt the Council could grant approval subject to the submission of these plans. . Atty. Courtney stated that Mr. Rein should be given an opportunity to present any additional material which was lacking at the Planning Commission meeting that might help his position. . Mr. Gray informed the council that he noted the four points in the Planning Commission minutes on which the Commission has based their recommendation of denial, and would like to deal with them point by point. He stated their purpose is to comply with every reasonable request. Mr. Gray then commented on the individual points, as follows: No. 1 - Mr. Gray informed the councl I that he had read the HousinQ PolIcy of 1966; he felt no pol icy, as such, has been established by the council. He asked what the existing housing pol icy is. No.2 - Letter, dated May 1, 1968, from Mr. Rein to the PlannlnQ Commission, which is on record, gives reasons why they feel property is not economically feasible for single fami Iy dwell ings. Mr. Gray then proceeded'to read the letter, which stated also that the area was feasible for multi-fami Iy dwellings. t!<2.,-_~ - Mr. Gray bel ieves that the "serious traffic problem" Is - 2 -