My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006.02.23 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2006 PC Minutes
>
2006.02.23 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 2:24:55 PM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:38:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
2/23/2006
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 <br />Page 5 <br />Hoffbeck asked what had changed with the pool and building from the original drawing that was <br />approved by the Planning Commission. <br />Hempel said the building did not get any smaller than what was approved. <br />Bailly said the pool on the brochure appeared to be the size of one of the townhome units. <br />Hoffbeck asked Hempel if he knew why there was a problem with communication, if misleading <br />information was being given by the sales staff. <br />Hempel said hearsay and rumors have spread throughout the neighborhood. <br />Terry Schwankl, 4589 Victor Path, asked what the capacity of the community center was. <br />Hempel said the capacity was 28 people upstairs and 140 in the pool. <br />The CDD said the issue of communication between the HOA and development representatives was a <br />separate issue and he cautioned the Commission not to get involved. Council had directed City staff to <br />look into the issue of sellers' disclosures. The Commission needed to focus on the PUD amendment <br />and the plat. The Commission and the Council had approved the plan for the community center. <br />Weir asked how the other properties became townhomes when they were zoned commercial. <br />Schumann explained there had been two amendments to the original PUD <br />The CDD explained the City is required to hold public hearings and notify property owners within 350 <br />feet of the application. Many residents were noticed of this PUD amendment because the application <br />involved a large 14 -acre parcel. <br />Diane Brown, 4565 Victor Path, Unit #9, had an issue with the density and number of kids visiting the <br />pool. She said the driveway would be built up to where the children would be getting in and out of <br />cars, which was not safe. There would be a lot of cars and a lot of traffic. <br />Hempel asked what could be done to make the on street parking safer. <br />Schumann asked Hempel if he would be willing to meet with the residents and if he would consider <br />bump -outs, striping, or speed bumps to help with the traffic issue. <br />Hempel said he would keep the door open. They have talked to residents at the open house and <br />received good feedback but are unsure what more they could do. <br />Hoffbeck asked why they were putting in more townhomes and why it could not be more community <br />area. <br />Hempel said he could not answer that question, but the unit count would still be the same. The original <br />plan showed apartment buildings on the site where retail was. Leaving the outlot open was not an <br />option. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.