Agenda - 12-01-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_10_ DRcT • 080 said he would vote in favor of the substitute motion but that his concerns would still unanswered. Mayor Wallace said that if the expected revisions entailed quite a bit of work and when brought back it was still defeated it might be better to turn down the substitute. COUNCIL MEMBERS PASQUINI AND WERNER WITHDREW THEIR SUBSTITUTE MOTION. THE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-11-10/R-2A FAILED TO PASS, ( 2-7) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS GODSCHALK AND THORPE VOTING IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-11-10/R-2B TO DENY THE APPLICATION. Council Member Howes said the motion should include the addition- al problems raised in the discussion that evening. Council Member Smith said he also questioned the statement of traffic analysis in the application which states that most of the traffic coming into town from the north would use I-40 to travel south once it was opened. Council Member Howes suggested that in lieu of rewriting the resolution, that if it passed, the minutes of this meeting on the Council' s discussion of this issue be forwarded to the Commis- sioners for their review. COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN AND SMITH AGREED TO AMEND THEIR MOTION TO HAVE THE MINUTES ON THIS DISCUSSION BE FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR REVIEW. Council Member Godschalk said that in reading the proposed resolution as grounds for the denial the fact that the proposed development is not appropriately located with respect to pattern and timing of existing proposed development in the Comprehensive Plan and yet the Comprehensive Plan does indicate that this area would be an urbanized area and would be developed in this Transi- tion Zone. He also said the developer was proposing to improve the public and private facilities that exist especially with the roadway. He said he was not sure what the minutes of the meeting would show would be conclusive to deny. He said the Council might need to be more specific. Attorney Karpinos responded that the addition of two paragraphs after the third paragraph which would state: . . . and WHEREAS, the Site Plan fails to provide adequate on-site recreation facilities as provided by the Orange County regulations; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds payment-in-lieu of recreation facilities to not be appropriate for this project; . . . Mr. Karpinos said the addition of these two paragraphs would address some of the concerns expressed by the Council.