Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />3/9/83 <br />Page 9 <br />the most important being that it was felt that the subdivision as proposed <br />would have no impact on any overall plan submitted. <br />Mr. Swift stated the City staff cannot reject applications and must make <br />recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. With <br />regard to the precedent setting nature of the recommendation it is not <br />a legal precedent but perhaps a moral one. He indicated that individual <br />applications will have to be looked at on their individual merits. He <br />stated that the facts would not be the same on each issue, therefore, no <br />legal precedence. The underlying reason the City Council, Planning <br />Commission and staff wanted an overall PUD was not only to get an idea as <br />to the development of the entire area, but it would also address how utilities <br />would be provided to the area. He stated that if you get a proliferation <br />of people not interested in participating in those kinds of things <br />the Planning Commission, City Council and staff will have to pay <br />particular attention to the subdivision of the lots subsequent to approving <br />a PUD. <br />Mr. Weimken stated he is still confused and this proposal is contrary <br />to his understanding of the proposal for the area. <br />Mr. Inderbitzen clarified the configuration of the proposal and stated <br />they do not wish. to do anything backhanded and his client has attempted <br />to maintain the spirit of the Council's desires in this community. <br />Commissioner Jamieson said he had no concerns about precedent setting <br />because if something comes up that doesn't look right, it doesn't have <br />to be approved.- He indicated that the Blacks have a very strong case. <br />Commissioner Getty agreed to these statements. Commissioner Doherty <br />didn't agree about their comments concerning precedence, but didn't think <br />the Black lot split is going to impact any plan which may come up. <br />Mr. Skinner presented his conceptual plan for the area. <br />Commissioner Doherty stated it appears to him that five people would be <br />for the Bissell and Karn plan and six would be for the plan Skinner has <br />and it is very hard to get all of the property owners to agree on one plan <br />for the area. He said this was his concern previously. Commissioner <br />Wilson concurred with the statements made by Commissioner Doherty. <br />Mr. Inderbitzen stated he has a concern with Condition No. 2 of the <br />staff report and asked if this would prevent Mr. Black from ever <br />developing his property. He said he would like a reasonable time period <br />stated. He said he would be willing to sit down with the City Attorney <br />and work out appropriate language to address this. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Mr. Swift stated that a PUD development plan can be initiated by the <br />property owners, Planning Commission or City Council at any time without <br />unanimous approval, but the City does not prefer to do this. Commissioner <br />Doherty had concerns in attempting to get property owners to build streets <br />if they do not desire to participate in an overall planned unit development. <br />-9- <br />