Laserfiche WebLink
-58- <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik stated there is a potential for development to occur on <br />property and no subdivision may be ~required. For instance, it is possible that there could be a <br />multi-family rental development that would not require subdivision of the property. Under the <br />current subdivision regulations, the City would not have the oppommity to obtain park <br />dedication consideration for a high density residential development. Based on conversation' with <br />a couple of other communities, staff drafted an ordinance that would require subdivision on all <br />developments, even if subdivision of property is not required. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied that it had been forwarded, but staff has not <br />received a response. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />There was none. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Kociscak, to recommend that City <br />Council adopt an ordinance to require park dedication on development projects that do not <br />require subdivision of land. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt' Commissioners Kociscak, Griffiths, Reeve, and <br />Wivoda. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Case//8: Reconsider Ordinance to Amend Commercial Tower Regulations <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik stated subsequent to Council's introduction of the new <br />ordinance on October 24, City Staff determined that some minor text changes were necessary in <br />the ordinance. We needed to clarify that 10 acre parcel sizes should not be required for the <br />placement of antennas on existing towers or structures in any district, or parks adjacent to <br />industrial or commercial uses, provided the antenna does not extend more than 15 feet above the <br />highest point of the structure. When Staff presented these additions to the City Council on <br />November 14, it was determined that the changes were not significant enough to require another <br />public hearing. However, the Council did request that the changes proposed by Staff be <br />reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to Council taking final action to adopt the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Kociscak, seconded by Chairperson Nixt, to recommend that City <br />Council adopt the proposed tower ordinance as presented by the Planning CommisSion and <br />modified by City staff. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Kociscak, Johnson, Reeve and <br />Wivoda. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/December $, 2000 <br /> Page 16 of 17 <br /> <br />! <br />! <br /> <br />i' <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />t <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />