Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. ' <br />Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission <br />August 29, 1985 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />2~) Sec~ion 8-40~: <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />.C~ti.zen ~np'ut' ~ndicates that the 12 month limitation on <br />99P~it~ona~. u~~ permits is too short and should be lengthened <br />to 3 to, 5 years. <br /> <br />Staff recommendation is to leave this section as is. <br /> <br />23) Section 8-404 (B): <br /> <br />Citizen comment indicates that a minor change in a major or <br />minor development site plan should not require resubmission of <br />a new general plan. <br /> <br />Recommended that this section be left as is but perhaps, make a <br />clear reference to the Development Ordinance sections that <br />apply. <br /> <br />Chairman Wilson made a motion that we reach a concensus on the <br />adoption of the recommendations made for Sections 8-200, 8-402 <br />(8), 8-402 (10), 8-403 and 8-404 (B). Motion by Mr. Blackwell <br />and Seconded by Janet Graves. Motion carried with no <br />ODDosition. <br /> <br />24) Section'10-101 (4): <br /> <br />This citizen input deals with construction schedules for <br />multistage planned unit developments. Staff feels the word <br />"approximate" should be included before the starting date and <br />completion date. <br /> <br />?~t,~Section,10-101.6 (C?:.H...... .c: ',.: .:': '.. <br /> <br />Citizen input indicates that the term "sufficient amount of <br />usuable open space" is somewhat vague. In the P.U.D. <br />situation, flexibility has to happen and must be in general <br />compliance per Mr. Paulissen. Any amendment to this section <br />would remove flexibility. <br /> <br />26) Section 10-102 (e): <br /> <br />Citizen comment indicates that there is no need for the review <br />of deed restrictions by the City Attorney to insure that they <br />comply with F.H.A. Deed Restrictions. Staff recommends that <br />