2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentF particular project would trigger those additional amenities, but that they would realistically be triggered 91 as additional developments came forward. Mr. Lloyd advised that roadway and traffic control 92 considerations would be considerations for any development as they related to the Comprehensive Plan 93 and AUAR, but had no bearing to other documents. 94 Chair Boerigter referenced Section 6.1 of the staff report, the last sentence, related to the Planning 95 Commission’s review of the requested City property disposal to make a determination about whether the 96 proposed development facilitated by the disposal was in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive 97 Plan, and asked that staff explain it more clearly. 98 Mr. Lloyd explained that the staff report talked about the proposed use in general, not the specific site 99 plan design under consideration, but whether the proposed retail use was consistent with the 100 Comprehensive Plan. 101 Chair Boerigter confirmed the language of that sentence again, clarifying the applicable standard for 102 which the Commission needed to make its determination. 103 Member Gisselquist questioned how intertwined the two recommended actions are, and whether the 104 development could be platted without the disposal of City property. 105 Mr. Lloyd opined that the Plat could probably be designed without the additional property. 106 Mr. Paschke advised that the request for disposal of the land was not so much a platting issue as a site 107 plan design issue; and opined that the developer could engineer the site if it was the City’s determination 108 not to sell back that piece of land, and that it was not necessarily needed to make the proposed 109 development work. 110 Chair Boerigter asked if the land would then remain available for City right-of-way; to which Mr. 111 Paschke clarified that the property was not City right-of-way, nor was it needed as such. 112 Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that this was the reason a formal vacation was not being requested, since 113 the property had originally been intended to be used in conjunction with the roadway, but not strictly for 114 right-of-way purposes. 115 Member Gisselquist noted his understanding of the decision currently before the Commission based 116 strictly on land use, with parcels being brought together by private owners, with the land disposal 117 considered in light of the Twin Lakes Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Member Gisselquist 118 advised that the disposal of City land was of concern to him, understanding that plat itself allowed little 119 decision-making by the Commission. However, Member Gisselquist noted that, with the land disposal, it 120 brought to the forefront the documents worked on over several years by citizens (e.g. Zoning Code, 121 Comprehensive Plan, etc.). 122 Mr. Lloyd indicated that the most fundamental way staff reviewed the proposal was seeing it as 123 Comprehensive Plan amenable, noting that it was the purpose of the revised Zoning Code, and bringing 124 it into consistency with the goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, not just for the entire 125 City but specifically for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area as well. While the Zoning Code revisions 126 are still fresh, Mr. Lloyd noted that staff made their recommendation after a thorough review and 127 confidence that the development met zoning requirements, and fell under the guidance of the 128 Comprehensive Plan. 129 Member Strohmeier expressed concern with the public notice issue after hearing from various neighbors 130 who had also expressed their concerns about the public notice for this proposed development. Member 131 Strohmeier questioned the trigger for requiring a community open house; opining that this was a pretty 132 substantial planning decision, and questioned why it hadn’t mandated an open house. 133 Page3of14