Laserfiche WebLink
avoid the possibility of having to make the request later, if the units are not <br />selling. <br /> <br />There being no other public comments, Chair Anderson closed the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Members of the Planning Commission discussed issues related to access, <br />parking, density, and traffic. It was the consensus of the Planning Commissioners <br />to deny the request, and, that the project would need to be reconsidered as <br />any other townhouse project, since the approval was given based upon the "55 <br />years and older" concept. Discussion was given to postponing the request until <br />the next Planning Commission in order to give Mr. Derrick time fo address the <br />Planning Commission's concerns, or, to deny the request and pass it on to the <br />City Council. Mr. Derrick requested the Planning Commission fo make their <br />recommendation at this time and forward their request fo the City Council for <br />consideration. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND <br />DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY DERRICK INVESTMENT TO AMEND THE PUD AGREEMENT <br />FOR THE COTTAGES OF ELK RIVER, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 96-19, BASED ON <br />TESTIMONY RECEIVED DURING THE PUBIC HEARING AND THE FACT THE APPROVED <br />SITE PLAN IS BASED ON 55 YEARS AND OLDER. IF THE RESIDENCY WERE TO <br />CHANGE, A COMPLETE REVIEW SHOULD BE DONE. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN <br />SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. <br /> <br />Mr. Derrick was advised to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission <br />before the upcoming City Council meeting, regarding traffic, access, parking <br />and curb and gutter. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />Debbie Kleckner <br />Recording Secretary <br /> <br /> <br />