CC_Minutes_2006_0828 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting - 08/28/06 Minutes - Page 18 compatibility and consistency Issues with the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Anderson expressed concern regarding individual Councilmember comments related to the compatibility of multiple-unit dwellings as rationale for not approving the plan, noting that findings would be required for not approving the application. Mr. Anderson advised that the Council could collectively encourage the developer to return with a proposal for all single-family units, no longer in mixed use that supports a PUD. Mr. Anderson addressed lot standards in specific zoning districts; and possible need to variance to those standards to go before the City's Variance Board of Appeals, thus creating issues with the process as a whole, and making the plan so different from originally proposed, that it may necessitate another Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level. City Attorney Anderson sought additional time to consider various implications to allow him to adequately advise the City Council. Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, motion to extend the 60-day review deadline for Planning Case PF 3676. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Maschka; Kough; and Klausing. Nays: None. Mr. Paschke advised that the proposal for single-family residential was far different and would gamer greater comment from Planning Commission members than what was originally presented to them. Mr. Paschke reviewed various options and Public Hearing provisions. Mr. Paschke addressed lot sizes; his advocacy of the City's housing plan and policies in place; and inconsistencies of larger homes and lot sizes with the neighborhood's character. Council member Ihlan opined that the City Council was the ultimate decision-maker in meeting the City's policy objectives; and spoke in opposition to sending the request back to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. City Attorney Anderson noted the need for the City Council to