Agenda - Council - 01/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-220- Motion failed. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Kurak and Zimmerman. Voting No: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Anderson, and Hendriksen. Motion by Mayor Gamec, seconded by Councilmember Hendriksen, to direct staff to draf~ findings of fact in the affirmative and negative and bring them back to the next City Council meeting for consideration. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Hendriksen, Anderson, Kurak, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Mayor Gamec recessed the regular meeting of the City Council at 8:48 p.m. Mayor Gamec called the regular meeting of the City Council back to order at 8:54 p.m. Case #5:..x Consider Use Permit for Mining and Grading: Case of Lance Van 'x,~ Gary Jacobs City Engineer Janko%v.~ki stated that the case was reviewed by the Planning ~9~ ~'ss o:~ at its November meeting. Su~se.,9.uent to the Planning Commission meeting Mr. J~ ow ;ki met on-site with the applicants on Noveh~r 14, 2001 to discuss grading alternatives Jankowski gave a brief history of the case. Councilmember Zimmerman inquire i~a, ' ' and was issued for the original pond. City Engineer Jankowski replied that the original was created as part of the grading plan for the North Fork subdivision. In regards to the discussed the City requested that the conditional use permit be applied for so tl the could be subject to the standard process.' A public hearing was held in at the Planning ' ' level at which time the Planning Commission requested thai be received fro"'m,,the Northfork Homeowners Association. On November 5, 20~ Planning Commission disc'~ed the issue again and at that it was recommended that t~ conditional use permit be denied an~irection was given to have staffmeet withtheappl'~nts't~ discuss alternatives' i~nect ~nl ~ Lance Van Norman, stat/ed that originally the entire area was designed for a berm ~oting that they were promised a berm//but never received one. The pond that previously existed hkd,,dried up so they decided to dig/tile pond d0w.n [hree to five feet and create a berm. The berm curl, exntly has a 35 percent maxi~rfim slope, which, is.not any more than a typical ditch or walkout. T.,~. p, ermit was denied at '~e Planrfing Commission because of the slope and height. He did not thi~k that they were eding anything else that exists in the development. They have spread 100 po~unds of rye on berm and it has begun growing. The I2 percent slope required by the City is not ade~ a berm. The three main issues around the berm are the slope, height and will it take veg, Many of the concerns of the neighbors are when will the berm be green, which is also / City Council/November 27, 2001 Page 12 of 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I