Planning Commission Minutes 2006 09 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Page 4 of 15 Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: None heard. Lipton requested a motion to enter into record the set of emails received since the distribution of the meeting packets. Loo moved and Pritchard seconded a motion to enter the emails into public record. Motion passed by voice vote. Staff Report of Facts and Issues: Wood advised the Commissioners that a revised Resolution No. 28 had been distributed and posted on the wall in Council Chambers. Wood provided a summary by using a power point presentation of the Preliminary Conditions of Approval from Resolution No.6, 2006. He discussed each condition and whether it had or had not been met. If the condition had not been met then he referenced the condition number on Resolution No. 28, Series 2006. His discussion concluded with a review of those conditions not previously discussed. Commission Questions of Staff: Loo requested clarification as to whether a similarly requested IGA to connect one road with another road in another jurisdiction had been done previously. Wood explained that the Cimarron IGA that was recently completed with Lafayette is a similar IGA. Loo inquired if the noise level study for the pump station had been completed and if so then what do the specific number rates mean. Wood briefly discussed and suggested that a representative with Markel should address that question. Lipton stated for clarification purposes only that the Commission is being asked to approve a subdivision plat and a PUD for two planning areas (#4 and 5) and the inclusion of 100% of the public use dedication. Wood stated that Lipton was correct. He also stated that the applicant would have to come back for a public hearing for Planning Areas 1,2 and 3. Wood clarified that the GDP sets forth what can be developed regarding entitlements, yard and bulk requirements for the entire 73 acres. Sheets asked why the Commission is not considering the entire development. Wood stated that the project would be completed in Phases. Dalton referenced one of the new correspondences regarding the mineral rights and asks what implications that had for the development of the property. Wood reviewed the City's obligations and suggested that the representative for the mineral company address that question at the appropriate time during the meeting. McAvinew had questions about a statement on page 7 of the staff report and its relationship to Condition #7. Wood stated that Tom Phare, Director of Public Works, should discuss that question about the Hecla Dam.