PL MINUTES 10212003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 October 21, 2003 •� Page 4 5 Chair Melsha addressed Mr. Gavic's concerns and explained that the Planning Commission has 6 no decision power with respect to land acquisition. 7 8 Vice Chair Stille agreed with Chair Melsha and suggested that Mr. Gavic discuss his concerns 9 with those who did not want to sell their property. 10 11 Chair Melsha further clarified that in order for the acquisition to be worthwhile they needed to 12 be able to purchase a certain amount of land mass. He explained that this was not accomplished 13 based on the fact there was one property owner that did not want to sell their property. 14 15 Mr. Gavic expressed his disagreement stating that the Planning Commission is responsible to 16 work with the neighbors that surround the project area. Chair Melsha agreed that the Planning 17 Commission should work with the residents and acknowledged their request for fencing and 18 their concern regarding the water runoff. He clarified that both of these issues would be 19 Planning Commission concerns adding that land acquisition is not. He clarified that land 20 acquisition is a private party matter between the property owner and the developer and that it 21 does not involve the Planning Commission. 22 23 Commissioner Tillman further clarified that land acquisition is not part of the City planning 24 process adding that it is a developer issue. 25 Mr. Gavic suggested that the City Planners work with the Residents to determine the impact it 2 would have on their neighborhood. 28 29 John Sullivan, 2005 22nd Avenue Northeast, asked if they were changing the zoning from Single 30 Family. Chair Melsha clarified the PUD amendment adding that it would not affect any of the 31 current homes,just the new properties to be developed. 32 33 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. 34 35 Chair Melsha acknowledged the frustrations expressed by the residents. He reviewed the issues 36 regarding the land acquisition concerns and clarified that this issue is outside the City process 37 and referred further questions to the developer. He stated that he is comfortable with the 38 proposed development and stated that he is satisfied with the buffer and stormwater issues. 39 40 Commissioner Hanson suggested polling the residents for fence separation. 41 42 Commissioner Tillman clarified that the fencing would be instead of the landscaping, not in 43 addition to it. 44 45 Mr. Brock reviewed the landscaping proposal stating that they have done this kind of buffer in 46 other areas adding that they have found that berming, heavily treed areas and shrubs work well `47 as a natural barrier and are easier to maintain than fencing. 40 Vice Chair Stille acknowledged Mr. Gavic's concerns and frustrations with respect to the land 50 acquisition issues and reviewed. He suggested discussing his concerns with the developer.