10/08/1997 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 1997 Page 15 turnarounds. Chair Schaps stated that such an arrangement would probably present too large a problem for emergency service providers. Mary Lee, 7782 Marilyn Drive, asked about the proposed ponds. She expressed concern that the berms might not be high enough, as the ponds are proposed to abut existing residential properties. Mr. Ahrens indicated that a safety factor is taken into consideration when ponds are proposed, so the berm as planned must meet such specifications. Mr. Rayburn returned to the podium, asking about the plan for the existing turnaround. Mr. Ahrens indicated that with a through- street the turnaround would most likely be removed and returned to a yard area. George Palace, 7722 Marilyn Drive, stated that he first became aware of the proposed development when it was presented for discussion after having been planned. He explained that the residents have a lengthy list of questions because there was not sufficient time for the neighborhood to address their issues prior to finalization of the plan. Chair Schaps explained that, with respect to installation of improvements, this process should take place at the time of construction in order to avoid having to tear up a street at some later date to install utilities after completion of a new development. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:37 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Dahl. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Dunn indicated that a considerable amount of information and questions had been presented by residents, such as the environmental impact study, and that he did not feel there were sufficient answers to questions for this project to go forward. Mary Kay Wyland explained that, with respect to an environmental impact study, such a study is not a requirement for this development. She added that approval from Rice Creek Watershed would be necessary. Chair Schaps asked about the time limit within which to act on this matter following the close of the public hearing. Ms. Wyland responded 60 days. Chair Schaps then asked Mr. Kerber what his expectations are with respect to progress on the development. Mr. Kerber indicated that he did not intend to begin construction before the end of 1997. Chair Schaps then asked about revisiting this matter in November. Mr. Kerber expressed confusion, as he felt that sufficient input had been invited through the previous neighborhood meeting. Mr. Brixius indicated that the applicant would have to be formally notified that the review is extended to 120 days; otherwise, the 60 -day time period would remain in effect.