2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

are properly maintained. The City does not have any requirements about how the 196 trash is handled. 197 198 Mr. Michael Schmidt, 1300 County Road D West, indicated he has lived across the 199 street from the property his entire life. He stated the property across the street from 200 him has been an eyesore for him his entire life. It did have a house on it at one time 201 and was demolished with a garage put up in its place and has never been maintained. 202 He knew that The Buboltz’s have done a lot of work and tried to maintain some 203 semblance of the property, but it is not their responsibility to keep it up because it is 204 not their property. He was glad something was finally being done with the property 205 to help make the area better to live in. His concern is that there are a lot of 206 apartments within the area and this will eventually become three duplexes that will be 207 rented out. There is an element that comes along with that. This is a very small 208 community because of County Road D and the property owners want to make sure 209 the area maintains itself. Another concern of his is the green aspect of this. He did 210 not see anything in the plans with respect to that such as solar panels, water 211 reclamation or anything like that. His last concern was the change in the plans and 212 that the developer went from four units to six units which concerns him because four 213 townhome units would probably mean owner occupied to six duplex units that will 214 more likely be rental. 215 216 Mr. Lloyd commented on the City’s ability to control properties being rented. He 217 noted even though the dwelling units are attached these units are proposed to be on 218 their own lots and may be sold separately. 219 220 Chair Gitzen closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. as no one else wished to address 221 the Commission. 222 223 Commission Deliberation 224 225 Member Pribyl indicated the Commission is asked to approve the plat and not 226 anything else. She explained there were not any variances either. She felt like there 227 might be some concerns about how this development is being done but the question 228 for the Commission is the plat. 229 230 Chair Gitzen indicated that was correct. 231 232 Member McGehee thought there were a number of problems that exist with this, not 233 the least of which is the City’s own definitional questions. She indicated she did not 234 think those questions and issues seemed to be answerable in this discussion. 235 236 MOTION 237 Member Schaffhausen moved, seconded by Member Kimble, to recommend to 238 the City Council approval of a Preliminary Plat of an Existing Parcel into Six 239 Lots in Order to Build a Twinhome Development with the conditions listed in 240 the RPCA. (PF20-026) 241 242 Member Schaffhausen indicated she made the motion to approve because she 243 believed there are some questions to be answered but as Member Pribyl pointed out 244 RCA Attachment E Page 5 of 28