CCP 07102023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment 5 148 already parking problems around the parks, especially in the summer, and this is 149 another example so she could not see in good conscious, herself in particular, could 150 vote to support this proposal based on the issues that have been raised and to which 151 there are not any answers. She would personally send this to the Council with those 152 preliminary findings of hers as to why this particular proposal should not move 153 forward. 154 155 Member Bjorum agreed with some of that. He did not want to penalize the developer 156 for doing a nice job of developing this property. Doing what he deems best for the 157 property, not going to the max density. He did not want to penalize him for planning 158 this because there is a parking problem that he is trying to plan for and has said so and 159 putting the burden of the neighborhood parking issue on his shoulders and this 160 development, he thought this was set up as medium density development and he did 161 not see an issue with what is on the plan and he did not see any legal ramification for 162 the Planning Commission to deny moving this forward. He understood this is next to 163 a very busy park and a very busy neighborhood, but he did not see the reason to 164 penalize the developer for those issues on this. 165 166 Member Aspnes thanked Member Bjorum for stating his reasons, there really is no 167 legal reason. 168 169 Member Bjorum explained acknowledged all of the residents in the neighborhood 170 that wrote in about parking issues and traffic issues but at the same time there is a 171 containment design here for those units and development. 172 173 MOTION 174 Member Bjorum moved, seconded by Member Schaffhausen, to recommend to 175 the City Council approval of a Preliminary Plat of an Existing Parcel as Ten 176 Lots for Single-Family Attached Homes (Twinhomes) (PF23-002). 177 178 Ayes: 5 179 Nays: 1 (McGehee) 180 181 Member McGehee explained she would state again the reason that she stated 182 previously as findings, and she believed that the City might want to revisit this at the 183 Council level as a purchase and she did not believe that the developer should be 184 penalized and lose money on this. To that regard she did not believe that the 185 developer should be penalized financially but she thought the City Council should 186 review this as something that they might want to revisit. 187 188 Motion carried. 189 190 Chair Pribyl advised this item will be before the City Council on July 10, 2023. 191 Page 10 of 10