Laserfiche WebLink
the Watershed District so they can take the pipe going to the northern part of the land and filter it into the <br />land and eventually into the wetland. <br />Thiesse noted Staff has identified 11 items the Planning Commission should discuss. <br />Curtis requested the Commission also discuss the driveway crossing over onto Walters Port. <br />Thiesse noted this is not a public hearing but that he would allow public comments on the sketch plan. <br />Greg Hueler, 2715 Pence Lane, stated since this project started, he has had between 20 to 30 neighbors <br />call him to ask him what is going on. Hueler stated during this process they have seen a number of <br />surveys showing this to be a point, which is not the case, and that it is a straight line down from his <br />property to the Dunkleys' property. Some of the neighbors have been asking what the consequences are <br />of tearing out big trees near the shoreline and what the consequences are of moving tons of dirt and <br />getting a stop and desist order. <br />Hueler stated there are a whole lot of things that are problematic for him with the project. Hueler noted <br />the developer talked about the existing home that was torn down. Hueler noted since the home is no <br />longer there, it is a moot problem. Hueler stated the original plan was shut down but that the Dunkleys <br />are now back asking for a subdivision, which most of the citizens think is going to be more restrictive. <br />Hueler stated the applicants are now proposing to put a house in half of his sightline and that he is <br />wondering why the City would allow that. There is 83 feet between the proposed house and his property <br />line, and if the house is located in the spot where Ms. Curtis is suggesting, the Dunkleys could maybe put <br />a garage in there but not the type of house that the neighbors would like. Hueler recommended the <br />Commissioners come look at the property. <br />Hueler stated in his view more people would have been here if they had known about the meeting but that <br />a lot of people are watching what is happening here and that there likely will be more feedback. <br />Hueler indicated the last phone call he had with Sue Dunkley was where she said she would sue them, <br />which she did the next day, and that she said they will get another lot categorically. Hueler questioned <br />whether there are people in authority that have given her that kind of feedback. Hueler stated he has a <br />concern with that and that it has been a frustrating process. <br />There were no further public comments regarding the sketch plan. <br />Thiesse noted the first discussion point listed in Staff s report is that the Commission and Council should <br />discuss the appropriate level of flexibility for a subdivision. Thiesse asked if they require one acre. <br />Curtis stated that is necessary for a lot with frontage on a road. <br />Thiesse asked if they meet that. <br />Curtis stated it is unclear at this point and that it sounds like the applicants are proposing the access as an <br />outlot that stops and that this would be their frontage on a substandard road. <br />Eric Vogstrom stated the new lot would be one acre and that currently the site is five acres. <br />Erickson noted at the time of the original proposal the minutes reflect that there were considerable <br />differences of opinion between the neighbor and the applicant regarding the legal description and other <br />elements of the proposal and that he is just wondering if those differences have been addressed. <br />Hueler stated the topic of the lawsuit is the Dunkleys want to overthrow the easements that have been in <br />place for decades but that the current easement is still in place. <br />Thiesse asked if he has an easement, <br />