Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Commissioner Nosan, seconded by Commissioner Surma, to close the public hearing. <br /> Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners Nosan, Surma, Anderson, <br /> Brauer, and VanScoy. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> Chairperson Bauer closed the public hearing closed at 8:00 p.m. <br /> Commission Business <br /> Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Surma, to recommend that City <br /> Council adopt Resolution 417-02-040 granting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for portions <br /> of the Armstrong West area. <br /> Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners Anderson, Surma, Brauer, <br /> Nosan, and VanScoy. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> 5.03: Stone Brooke Academy Site Selection. <br /> Presentation <br /> Chairperson Bauer stated it would be appropriate to postpone discussion on this item until the <br /> applicant can be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting. The Commission was in <br /> agreement. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill recommended the Commission hear the presentation <br /> from staff regarding the recent developments surrounding the Stone Brooke Academy site <br /> selection. The Commission was in agreement to hear the update from staff. <br /> Assistant City Administrator/Economic Development Manager Brama stated Stone Brooke <br /> apologized for not being able to attend this evenings meeting. He presented the staff report <br /> stating the City Council has indicated more information is needed before a final decision can be <br /> made regarding the Stone Brooke Academy site selection. The Council was concerned about the <br /> ramifications this single project (about 1 acre)would have on the development of the larger <br /> parcel/block (about 5 acres). The Council desires to know more about how the various <br /> development challenges associated with this site will play out in various development scenarios <br /> (i.e. Stone Brook proposal vs. single developer master planned site). <br /> Development Challenges <br /> (1) Yolite Street connection. Existing curb cuts. Existing intersection. Existing Storm water <br /> line. <br /> (2) Remnant lots. 1/2 acre lot. 3 acre lot. <br /> (3) The well, and well easement. <br /> Planning Commission/February 2, 2017 <br /> Page 6 of 10 <br />