09-21-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

NIIN[TrES OF THE ' ORQNO PLA.NNING CONIlVIISSION MEETIlVG Monday,Augast 17,2015 6:34 o'clock p.m. ,� � Leskinen sta#ed the question for the Planning Connmission is,what the City caa do,assuming,for the sake � �� of discussion,there�s no other altenaative to getting construction traff'ic to these potential lots. Leskinen stated her inclination is to find another way to access these lots for construction traffic. Melanie Flessner asked who would be looking at it. Leskinen stated it is easier for the Planning Commissioners to have an open discvssion without input from the public at ti�is point Leskinen requested the public hold their questions and that she cauld reopen the public hearing later if need be,but first ttxe Planning Commission needs to have a discussion first. Berg stated if there are alternatives,they need to be looked at. Leskinen askcd if that is something that both the develaper and City Engineer cau explore. Thiesse stated the City Engineer could also look at it but that he would hope the developer would be open to exploring zt. Lemke stated it should be the pri�nary onus of the developer to come up with some altenaatives and that it should not be the responsibility of the City Engineer. Landgraver sta.ted it seems reasonable for a developer to sssume that they could access a public road far construction. Landgraver stated for the Platming Commi�ssion to require them to find anot�er route might ba without a precedent but that perhaps the Planning Commission ca�a still ask for it. L�andgraver stated what they are doing is squeezing the air out of one part of the balloon in ternas of County Road 15 and pushing it down to another part. Landgraver stated they might end of solving it for ti�is neighborhood but pvshiag it off somewhere else. Lemke asked if the pathway is a better alternative. Landgraver stated they are both bad. Page 55 of 65