My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 06 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 06 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:32:04 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 3:26:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
6/10/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
2/3/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 10, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 15 <br />Zuccaro replied that the Open Space board was supposed to advise Council on <br />potential acquisitions. He referenced the Open Space Ranking Table, noting that the <br />current acquisition strategy contemplated trail easements and some acreage. This was <br />a working document for OSAB and Council and the 2019 document was the most <br />current. <br />Moline stated that OSAB would have been aware of this when it was doing its referral <br />comments for this development and their recommendation was to accept the dedication <br />in the application. <br />Brauneis asked Director Zuccaro to describe the fee simple language in the document. <br />Zuccaro replied that he wasn't totally familiar with the history of the document, but the <br />fee simple was about being dedicated to the City, which was in the current Redtail <br />proposal. The dedications should take place after the Final Plat, even though the Open <br />Space document mentioned the PUD approval timeline. <br />Moline asked if staff had identified any wildlife habitat or any other natural resource <br />issues on the property that would preclude the proposal as it stands. He asked for <br />confirmation that the application was not going to create significant impacts on wildlife <br />and the environment. <br />Zuccaro replied that he didn't know if the analysis didn't go so far as to say it wouldn't <br />have an impact, but the Code did talk about preserving natural features but that was <br />about as strong as it gets. When the boards went out and did their visits they looked at <br />the parts that had not been developed. <br />Diehl asked if the entirety of the Redtail parcel was ever considered a target for the <br />Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB). <br />Zuccaro replied that he was not sure previous to 2019 and he imagined there had been <br />conversations over the years about different types of acquisitions but he didn't know. <br />Diehl asked about the acreage column. <br />Zuccaro replied that there were three different segments referenced in the chart and his <br />interpretation was that it meant 30 acres total, not 30 acres for each reference, but he <br />was not sure. <br />Howe asked about the deed restriction regarding height restrictions and if the City were <br />not to approve heights above three stories would the common open space not exist. <br />Zuccaro replied that if they did not provide heights over three stories there would be no <br />obligation to provide open space. The deed restriction would be approved during the <br />PUD process and would run with the land. It would have language about the character <br />of the land and it was a separate document drafted by the Attorney that was a restriction <br />on the property that was enforceable. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.