Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />A p r il 13 , 200 5 <br />Page 9 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br />Vice Chair Tralle asked if they were in ag reement with conditions 9 through 14 as added <br />by staff. Mr. Piette replied they agreed to all of the conditions, except condition number <br />9 where they were being required to obtaining an easement. He noted this was designed <br />as a PUD and it would work together. He stat ed if it made sense to have an access in the <br />future, an access would be added. Mr. Bengt son replied the only thing they could show <br />on the plat was an easement, but on the site plan it could be shown as a future access, <br />which held less weight in the long-term, but if the property to the southwest wanted <br />access, they would need to go through a review process and be required to work with the <br />current property owner to obtain an access, but the only way to guarantee an access <br />would be to have an easement. He indicat ed an access would need to be part of a <br />Development Agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Piette noted an easement would cut into the green space. Mr. Laden stated he would <br />like to see an easement. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Tralle stated he agreed with the developer because the developer did not own <br />the land and he was developing this piece of la nd. He stated this was different than a <br />residential area because this was zoned i ndustrial and asked how could they hold him <br />responsible to an unknown. <br /> <br />Mr. Root noted they were not forcing the developer to do anything, only reserving the <br />space for a future access. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden understood the developer was frustr ated, but hoped he understood that as a <br />Board they wanted to see what was going in to know that this development would be <br />something the City could be proud of and part of the reason this had gone on like this was <br />because the Board was detailed oriented. Ho wever, he did believe that this developer <br />was truly interested in working with staff and that was a nice thing to see and that gave <br />him confidence that this development woul d be a good development and he was excited <br />about this type of a development in the City because the City had for a long time <br />discouraged business and he was happy to see business come into this community and he <br />wanted to see a nice development like this in the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he was comfortable with the recommendations as long as condition 9 <br />indicated examine future access. <br /> <br />Mr. Bengtson asked if the Board was comfortabl e with staff reviewing the site plans for <br />each lot as they came in and if so, a condition should be added stating that, but if not, and <br />this is to come back to the P&Z Board a nd City Council then the Board should add this <br />type of a condition. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson suggested the Board wa nted to review this to ensure that new developments <br />continue to meet the previous ly stated requirements. <br />