Laserfiche WebLink
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Ms. Sorensen noted there would be no problem <br />continuing communication with the developer relating to concerns that she has voiced. <br /> <br />Mr. Lemoine addressed Ms. Sorensen's concerns and stated that his understanding is that the existing <br />access to property will be closed offand that the easement will be removed; however, she will have the <br />ability to connect onto her property through the new private mad. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift noted that the street Ms. Sorensen will utilize is the private road that branches offthe public <br />street and he provided an overview of the location of the new private road. Further, he stated that Ms. <br />Sorensen will be provided a new easement over the portion of road where it intersects with the current <br />easement. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Commissioner Maas and Chairperson Roberts disclosed that they have met with the developer. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to street lighting and retaining the rural nature of the area, ways in which to <br />ensure dedication of the Lemoine property, and a possible timeline for dedication of the one-acre parcel <br />of land. <br /> <br />Mr. Plucker noted that the current conditions require the one-acre to be dedicated in conjunction with the <br />approval of the Tentative Map; however, if the applicant is amenable, there could be specific findings <br />made in conjunction with approval of this PUD application that one-acre should be considered for a <br />future amenity to satisfy a future PUD development plan type of approval. Commissioner Maas noted <br />that as part of the same condition as a compromise that the Park District and the applicant work out <br />some type of time frame for dedication of the one acre. There is considerable discussion relating to <br />utilizing the one-acre donation as a future amenity credit. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED <br /> <br />Mr. Lemoine readdressed the Commission and noted that if he understands correctly, he would not have <br />a problem with the one-acre being a future amenity. However, he reiterated that he desired to build <br />three homes for his children and an additional three units on the property. Further, he noted that if the <br />City provided assurance that the remaining acreage can be utilized to build those units, he would be <br />willing to reach a compromise at this time. He noted that his concern is that he would donate that <br />acreage and the City would decide building cannot be performed. Further, he stated that he would be <br />willing to donate more land than the one-acre and that he views the donation of the land as an amenity. <br />He noted that even with the additional units, that the property is still below the number of units provided <br />by annexation. <br /> <br />Chairperson Roberts noted that the City cannot provide any guarantees. Commissioner Maas stated she <br />would desire that Mr. Lemoine work with the Park District to reach a compromise on a timeframe for <br />dedication of the acreage. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Lemoine stated that <br />the one-acre dedication is based on developing the other lots sometime in the future as an amenity. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 September 8, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />