Laserfiche WebLink
tonight's action. Mr. Trudgeon also noted that as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update <br />currently in process, future land use designation was for this parcel to be designation high <br />density residential. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that the turnaround should be on the developer's property and that <br />they should pay park dedication fees as outlined in the staff report. <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on impervious surface calculations on this proposal. <br />Mr. Trudgeon advised that he didn't have those calculations available tonight, but would provide <br />them later. <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concerns addressed in the previous action item regarding this <br />proposed project; and her preference for preservation of the low quality Oak woodland and <br />wildlife habitat areas; and opined that the AUAR, page 20, committed the City to seeking <br />parkland dedication fees and preserving those areas. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of <br />requiring park land dedication fees and removing the public road. <br />Mayor Klausing noted his previous requests that Councilmembers raise such issues with staff <br />before a meeting, rather than bringing them forward at the bench, in order to allow staff and the <br />full Council to be aware of those issues and to research background materials. <br />Councilmember Ihlan took issue with Mayor Klausing's comments. <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke advised that, when the Concept Plan was presented, the original <br />proposal called for a private road with the senior cooperative development on the south side and <br />townhomes on the north side, which had been rejected by staf£ Mr. Paschke noted that, the <br />Planning Commission and this City Council had recommended the proposal now before them <br />under the General Concept Plan, and representing the goals as set forth at that Council meeting. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that staff could return to discussions and further negotiations with the <br />developer; however, that the City Council had approved a public road for access to the park, as <br />proposed. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that there had never been any agreement from the City Council on <br />whether the turnaround would be located on private or public property. <br />Mr. Paschke concurred; that all plans previously submitted had platted that turnaround on park <br />property; however, there had not been discussion at the City Council level. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that, when this was previously discussed, she was in agreement with <br />all other recommendations; however, noted that this issue had remained open in her mind. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City could not give away part of the City's park land as <br />part of a private development proposal, as presented. <br />Mr. Trudgeon advised that further discussion needed to take place, if the turnaround was not <br />located on park land, to explicitly state the location on the private development property. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that another resolution of another site plan was needed first, <br />contingent upon giving up some of the City's park land, if not resolved and including public <br />input beyond the immediate neighborhood. <br />Councilmember Willmus requested input from the applicant on their stance on the Park and <br />Recreation Commission's recommendation on park dedication and if the turnaround could be <br />located on their property. <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />