Laserfiche WebLink
s <br />PLANNING COrWISSION MEETING HELD J4ARCH 18, 1991 <br />(ill)ZONING FILE #1629-MCNULTY CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED <br />Bellows stated that she wr.s consistently^ opposed to the <br />structure from the beginning, and that she coutd not recommend <br />approval of enlarging it. <br />Kelley stated t’nat he had also been opposed to the tennis <br />court structure whan the application v/as first introduced to the <br />Planning Commission. He added, "This structure sparked quite a <br />bit of interest in the Planning Commission and Council, and after <br />reviewing our escisting Ordinances, v;e drafted the naw Accessory <br />Structure Ordinance. I have to stand by that ne>. Ordinance. <br />Jim McNulty showed a sketch of the building plan that was <br />approved by Council, and stated that due to budget decisions, a <br />smaller building was constructed. He then displayed a sketch of <br />the proposed addition, and explained that the square foo«_age of <br />the addition is approximately 1,000 sf. lass than the area that <br />was approved in the first plan, but not constructed. fl>-Nulty <br />said, "Vie are now asking permission to construct a portion of the <br />original plan that was approved. The structure has been <br />successful and has n.it proven t ■> bn an inconvenience to tne <br />neighborhood. The owners went overboard to meat the landscape <br />requirements." <br />Kelley stated that he drives by the structure twice a day <br />and agreed that it has a pleasing appearance, but addsd that he <br />must adhere to his principles. <br />The Public Hearing was continued. <br />(#12)RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL <br />HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY <br />Kelley referred to a draft memo dated March 11, 1991, that <br />was prepared by Staff, summarizing thn Planning Commission's <br />comments and recommendation stemming from the two February Public <br />Hearings. He said, "In my opinion, this memo is very close to <br />vhat we discussed." <br />Hanson stated that he had hoped all seven members v/ould be <br />present when this recommendation was discussed. He suggested to <br />Kelley that it may ba appropriate to explain, for the benefit of <br />those in the audience, the nature of the six to one vote. <br />Kelley stated that the difference in opinion focused mainly <br />on consideration of County Road 6 being upgraded. <br />Hanson added that Planning Commissioner Rowlette, who <br />registered tiie minority vote, did not wish to sae the existing <br />Highway 12 corridor selected for the proposed upgrade. <br />Kellay read a portion of the March 11, 19^1 dra:t which <br />- 20 -