Laserfiche WebLink
192 <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Chairperson Anderson called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at <br />8:I0 p.m. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sohnson stated that some of the issues raised dealt with traffic concerns and there <br />has been a constant problem with access along T.H. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that the intersection of 153~ Avenue and T.H. #47 will have <br />stop lights and be reconfigured to have dedicated left turn lanes that should accommodate 13 <br />vehicles. He reviewed a traffic analysis that indicated the critical movement is in the early <br />morning westbound traffic turning onto T.H. ff47, but indicated with signalization of the <br />intersection it will allow for .those tums to be protected and should be able to accommodate five <br />to eight times the amount of traffic. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson inquired if the City Attorney had an oppommity to view the public <br />hear/rig that was held at the June Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that he had read the June meeting minutes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson questioned the City Attorney's level of comfort to deny the rezoning. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that he would not have a strong comfort Ievei with deny/rig the <br />rezoning request. He questioned if the restrictive covenants that were mentioned also apply to <br />the 75 acres. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that if the restrictive covenants were included on the 75 acres <br />that would be something the City would want to research, but he did not believe that to be the <br />case. He stated that the residents feel that promises were made to them by the developer at the <br />tine of sale, but noted that is not a relationship between the City and the developer. If the <br />residents were able to provide a contract indicating promises that were made, then t. hey may have <br />an issue with the developer if the property is rezoned; but it is not an obligation to the City and <br />not relevant to the rezoning action. The only other issue would be the traffic impact. <br /> <br />Commissioner Joknson stated that later on the agenda the Commission will be considering an <br />ordinance that would implement some aspect of the Charter amendments which presumably <br />could have a significant impact on any plat that was submitted on th.is property if the City <br />Council were to adopt the ordinance. He requested that the item be moved up on the agenda so <br />that the residents present for the tLeilley Estates Case are aware of the discussion. Ivlr. Johnson <br />inquired if the City Attorney found the proposed findings of fact appropriate. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied yes, but suggested the Commission include information on traffic <br />concerns. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/July 10, 2000 <br /> Page ~; of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />