My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
PC Packet 01.10.19
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Agendas/Packets
>
2019 PC Packets
>
PC Packet 01.10.19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 5:11:49 PM
Creation date
5/6/2019 4:18:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
1/10/2019
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 <br />October 25, 2018 <br />Page 2 <br />appraisal that the piece of property they are dedicating is valued for more than what they would have to pay, <br />than the Parks Commission is comfortable with allowing the City Council to decide on park- dedication. At the <br />time, the applicant had not provided an acceptable method of evaluation for that parcel so the Parks <br />Commission did not accept the arrangement. <br />Commissioner Tjernland asks whether they can accept or not accept that recommendation from the Parks <br />Commission. <br />Juba answers by saying yes, but there is not enough valid information to make a different recommendation. <br />Bryan Bear clarifies that the Parks Commission is always going to make a recommendation on park dedication <br />in terms of land and fees. That recommendation then goes to the Council. The Planning Commission can <br />recommend whatever they would like, but may want to respect the Parks Commission recommendation. <br />Commissioner Fry asks if there is any concern with the plat changing in the long run in terms of lot size. <br />Juba responds by saying that the PUD and Preliminary Plat is subject to this specific plan. The approval is <br />specific to this plan so they cannot carve out any additional lots. <br />Chair Kleissler gave the applicant the opportunity to address the Planning Commission. <br />Applicant Cheldon Frank comes forward with Todd Erikson, engineer on the project. Frank asks if the Planning <br />Commission has any questions. <br />Chair Kleissler asks Frank to address the Commissions concerns previously stated in presentation. <br />Frank starts by addressing that the goal of the development is to preserve the natural land of the area, which is <br />the first intent of the PUD. The developer intends to create a development with high standards that meets city <br />code and standards. <br />Erikson adds that the Planning Commission recommended that they update lot lines 3 and 4 to move away from <br />the wetland, which they did. They determined that the wetland is groundwater and surface water fed, so they <br />looked at preserving it with respect to both proponents. <br />Chair Kleissler asks if there are any additional questions. <br />Chair Kleissler opens the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. <br />Robert Flick of 7788 125x' St. comes forward to ask if there are plans to move forward with constructing a cul- <br />de-sac at the end of 125' St. or if the road is to remain intact. <br />Dale Daul of 12899 Homestead Dr. N comes forward to talk about a deserted park area at the north end of <br />Homestead Dr. N making Sunset Lake a private lake. He is concerned that there will be a similar problem with <br />the proposed park within the development on the south side of the lake. <br />Dorothy Furlong of 12521 Homestead Dr. N comes forward and states that the lake association currently uses <br />the one acre lot to the south of her property to salvage lake weeds and asks if they will lose the ability to do that <br />if a park is built there. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.