2011_0411_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D 7 . .... 7' Chair Boerigter recognized Member Gottfried's concerns, and advised that in many circumstances, he would 7'8 agree. However, in reviewing this request, and based • the verbal comments of the City Engineer, as well as 7'9 the recommendation condition of staff that remaining engineering details be addressed prior to approval by the 80 City Council, he found no rationale for delaying action. Chair Boerigter advised that, no matter how those more 81 technical requirements were worked out, they were beyond his ability to discern, and he expressed his 82 confidence in staffs analysis and recommendations at the City Council level; and that those final issues did not 8'3 impact his clecision-ma king • moving this request forward based on those contingencies. 84. Member Gisselquist expressed his inclination to concur with Member Gottfried, noting that there remained two 85 (2) areas where missing data was obvious. Member Gisselquist noted that this was a public forum designed for 86 public comment; and that the Commission needed to do their due diligence prior to making a recommendation 8 7' to the City Council and not depend on the City Council to take time to review those technical questions. Member 88 Gisselquist advised that he was inclined to deny the request, or support a motion to continue, pending receipt of 89 Vie @,,4(shtiotal itforttati&t. 90 Member Best concurred with Chair Boerigter, supporting moving forward with the request and supporting 91 expressing his confidence in the City Engineer making recommendation for any final approval based on technic 92 data received. I 9'3 Member Wozniak advised that, under normal circumstances, he would request more detail; however, in this 94. case, he was unsure of what he could add above and beyond the assurances by City Engineer Bloom that all was 95 in order. Member Wozniak expressed his confidence in relying on Ms. Bloom's expertise and final review by the 96 Development Review Committee (DRC) to make those technical decisions • any outstanding issues. Member 9 7' Wozniak spoke in support • the request, contingent upon staffs recommendation for the condition detailed in 98 Section 7.0 • the staff report. 99 MOTION 100 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Best to RECOMMEND approval of the proposed 101 PRELIMINARY PLAT at 2285 Walnut Street; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the 102 recommendation of Section 7 of the Request for Planning Commission Action dated March 2, 2011; with said 10'3 appraval canditianed upan submittal by the Applicant any and all autstanding easement,, starm water,, and 1 G4 utility data ta staff, with thase submissians subject ta the satisfactian af the Public Warks Department and 105 priar ta cansideratian af the prapased plat by the City Cauncil. 10 7' Ayes: 3 (Best,,, Wozniak,,, Boon gter) 108 Nays: 2 (Gisselquist; Gottfried) 109 Motion carried. Page 3 of 3