My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-14-06 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
12-14-06 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2008 9:32:51 AM
Creation date
4/23/2008 9:28:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />DECEMBER 14, 2006 <br />Rheaume encouraged the developer to work with the Watershed District as <br />this development progresses along. <br />McGraw agreed that the revised concept is a much better design, and <br />noted that the developer is not asking for anything outside the City's <br />standards. McGraw stated that he understood the concern about water, but <br />questioned the availability of recourse once the project is constructed and <br />should the drainage not work. McGraw stated that it is up to homeowners <br />to protect their land, and also encouraged the homeowners to work with <br />the City and the Watershed District on the drainage issues. McGraw also <br />encouraged the developer to work with the neighboring property owners. <br />McGraw stated that if lengthening the cul-de-sac allows for the minimum <br />75 foot front yard setback to be met at the 30 foot setback line, he may <br />support such a variance. McGraw stated that at this point, however, he <br />does not know enough to say definitely whether he would support a <br />variance or not. <br />The City Planner indicated that in reviewing concept plans, the <br />commission can pass the concept on to the Council with comments, or <br />recommend approval of the concept subject to conditions. He noted that <br />the City does not have a formal process for concept approvals. <br />Barraclough stated that he had no problem with the concept, provided that <br />the issues that are being discussed this evening are addressed. <br />Barraclough suggested that the concept be passed on with comments. <br />McGraw agreed. <br />Duray asked the Planner about his comment for connections to adjacent <br />properties. The Planner stated thaC he would ask thaC the developer look at <br />some options to provide for connections to the adjacent properties. He <br />indicated that both he and the City Engineer would work with the <br />developer to explore these options. <br />Soby stated that he was willing to explore connection options. His <br />concern, however, was that available options may change what he is able <br />to do with this property. <br />The Planner indicated that the City's practice has been to consider the <br />long-term plan for an entire area to the extent possible. <br />Rheaume expressed concern that if access to the west and east is provided <br />in this plat, that the future buyers be informed of these access points. The <br />City Planner indicated that measures can be taken to ensure that buyers are <br />informed of future road extensions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.