My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (4 SETS) 04-28-2020
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2011-2020
>
2020
>
04-28-2020
>
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (4 SETS) 04-28-2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2020 10:20:36 AM
Creation date
4/22/2020 10:14:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
4/28/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Page 3 <br />January 28, 2020 <br />----------------------------- <br />Commissioner Jordan asked if the Planning Commission denied the zone change, <br />what would happen to the people who may currently be living at the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated he believed there were people living in the property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito asked if the applicant could be given an opportunity to <br />withdraw the application so he wouldn’t have to wait six months to reapply for an <br />IUP. She stated she is hesitant to deny something that would hold up the applicant <br />reapplying if all the options were presented and discussed and was surprised that the <br />applicant is making this request. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated they discussed all the options with the applicant, who preferred <br />to only have two units. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson stated the way to review this application is they make a <br />recommendation to the City Council and hope the applicant attends the council <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ovall again asked why the Planning Commission was recommending <br />denial. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson stated the reason they were recommending denial was based upon <br />spot zoning. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ovall asked why they discussed allowing two units as an option if <br />they’re not going to recommend approval. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated the Planning Commission, while not in support of spot zoning, <br />would consider recommending approval of two units and noted staff was not in <br />support of either spot zoning or approval of two units. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thiel stated with this, the Planning Commission has to make a <br />recommendation based upon what was presented to them, but the neighborhood is <br />in a single-family neighborhood. He stated he doesn’t feel a strong obligation to <br />figure out a solution for a property owner who had an opportunity to seek due <br />diligence and figure out what he was buying before purchase. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson stated this property has been operating under a legal non-conforming <br />use for many years. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito stated she moved into the neighborhood in 2016 and <br />stated it’s very clear there are two different families living in the property. She stated <br />she wanted to be careful they aren’t making assumptions of the property, asking if <br />there had been any code review of the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated as previously discussed at last month’s meeting, a similar <br />property located across Highway 10 was also set up as a multi-family property, but <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.