Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />Ju ne 9 , 20 04 <br />Page 8 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. Thompson clarified the Rice Creek Wa tershed District’s initial decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Smyser noted it appeared they did get initial approval from the Rice Creek <br />Watershed District. <br /> <br />Chair Schaps noted it appeared that items 3A and B had now been satisfied. <br /> <br />Marvin Emily, 590 62 nd Street, stated he was opposed to the filling in wetlands, but he <br />was not opposed to his neighbors building on thei r property. He stated they needed to <br />take care of the drainage problems before they take any more wetlands. <br /> <br />Chair Schaps noted this had been approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District and this <br />Board were not engineering e xperts and had to rely on the experts who are saying this <br />would not create any additional drainage problems. <br /> <br />Wayne Junes, applicant, presented some photogr aphs to the Board as to what would be <br />removed. He stated he did not believe there would be a drainage issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle asked if he was sure there was going to be culverts there. Mr. Junes stated he <br />believed the road development w ould need to put in culverts. <br /> <br />Mr. Smyser replied he did not have the engine ering drawings before him, but the street <br />standards was that you could not make water flow off your property to another property <br />and these things were taken into account as the Engineer’s reviewed the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty asked where the drainage ditch was located. Mr. Junes pointed out on the <br />map where the ditch was going. <br /> <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. and was supported by <br />Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification on items 3A and 3B. Chair Schaps replied the Rice <br />Creek Watershed District had issued a Cap Roc, which was a preliminary approval and <br />there was no need to table this, bu t it would still remain a condition. <br /> <br />Mr. Root asked if the remain ing conditions, except for A and B, were not too burdensome <br />on staff that they get complete d prior to this going to Counc il. Mr. Smyser replied most <br />of the conditions were standard conditions, which would not additional burden to staff’s <br />time. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend rezoning from Rural to Residential <br />Executive (R-1X) approval and was suppor ted by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend that MUSA capacity be allocated for this <br />parcel and was supported by Mr. Ra fferty. Motion carried 6-0. <br />