Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />10/5/88 <br /> <br />Commissioner Olsen stated the City must look at the future. He stated <br />he would not be in favor of seven buildings. He also felt the City had <br />islands of development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kimball questioned island concept. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fuchs wanted a review of the stipulations. <br /> <br />Stephen Rohlf provided additional stipulations for the project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kimball stated he doesn't like the project because of its <br />density and potential traffic problems. He also stated that the project <br />will probably go through. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated she had the same concerns. <br /> <br />Commissioner Morton stated he does not like the density. <br /> <br />Chairman Kropuenske <br />may be problems. <br />deny the project <br />building No.6. <br /> <br />stated he felt the project was too dense and there <br />He also stated that the Planning Commission can not <br />because they did not like it. He also questioned <br /> <br />There was general discussion concerning building No.6. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER OLSEN MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST BASED ON DENSITY, <br />POTENTIAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. AND DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES. COMMISSIONER <br />KIMBALL SECONDED THE MOTION WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. <br /> <br />A PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL FELT THE AREA WAS BETTER SUITED FOR A PARK, <br />THE GENERAL DENSITY OF THE AREA. SOIL CONDITIONS, AND THE <br />TOPOGRAPHY. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER OLSEN SECONDED THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. UPON <br />VOTE TAKEN THE MOTION WAS DENIED BY VOTE' OF 3-4. <br /> <br />UPON VOTE TAKEN ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION. IT WAS ALSO DENIED BY A VOTE OF 3- <br />4. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST CONTINGENT UPON <br />CONDITIONS 1-11 IN THE ORIGINAL MEMO AND THE NEW ADDITIONS PROPOSED BY <br />STEVE ROHLF. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. UPON VOTE TAKEN. <br />THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 6-1. <br /> <br />1. THE WATER SERVICE MUST BE LOOPED IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY <br />ENGINEER AND THE FIRE CHIEF. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL FIRE HYDRANT BETWEEN BUILDING NO. 7 AND NO. 4 <br />AND INSTALL THE THREE (3) HYDRANTS INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN. <br /> <br />THE SANITARY SEWER SERVICING BUILDINGS NO.1. 5. 6 AND 7 WILL BE <br />CONSTRUCTED AS EITHER AN INSIDE OR OUTSIDE DROP. DARRELL MACK WILL <br />INDICATE WHICH TYPE IS TO BE USED. <br /> <br />3. <br />