3A Public Hearing 2006 0905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts/rom the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Agenda No. 06-11 June 8, 2006 Page 90/10 is attractive and fits into the surrounding community. She said she is strongly supportive of in-fill projects, but the design of the proposed project does not excite her and is missing a neighborhood feel. Commissioner Perras said the Garden Terrace residents currently experience an unattractive view of a lot that is largely vacant. He said there are lots of people who live in homes with no view because projects have legally developed adjacent to them. He said he felt the developer had listened to views previously expressed and had made significant changes. He said he did not know if another meeting would make any difference. He said the project as proposed would get rid of an ugly, rundown house and replace it with a project that will provide a nice transition between Garden Terrace and the two-story duplex to the immediate north of the proposed project. Commissioner Ponder said he personally liked the lower density of the project as well as many features of the proposed design. He said he would like to see a nicer arbor, especially since the development is to be called Arbor Place. He said he feels the project fits into the neighborhood and looks good. He said he felt the comments made by Garden Terrace residents should be addressed before the design of the proposed project is finalized. Chair Kleebauer asked the applicant whether he wanted the Planning Commission to vote yes or no as the project stands. Applicant Langon responded affirmatively. Motion to forward PLN2005-0014, together with the rezone from RM1800 Residential Multi-Family District to RM2500(PD), the Planned Development Overlay and Vesting Tentative Map to City Council with a recommendation for approval. (Dlugosh / Perras; 3 Ayes - Dlugosh, Holcomb, Perras; 3 Noes - Kleebauer, Ponder, Holcomb; Absent - Reed) The vote on the motion is a tie vote. Assistant City Attorney Stewart advised commissioners that when a motion does not pass or fail, and there is no action on the motion in the following 15 days, the motion is denied administratively. She said that two options remain. The first option is to continue the matter to a date certain and have another vote with the full body to determine whether it will pass or fail. The second option, on the occasion of an administrative denial, is the right of the applicant to appeal the matter to the City Council. Secretary Po II art said she had been advised by Commissioner Reed that he would be absent from the June 22, 2006 regular meeting. Commissioners discussed upcoming meeting dates to determine the earliest date at which the full roster of commissioners would be available to reconsider the proposal.