Laserfiche WebLink
<br />original plan where there were smaller, higher density lots in the middle and the outside lots could <br />try to match more with the rural character of what was already there. She recalled that the outside <br />lots were 80-foot and the inside were smaller 55-foot or 65-foot so it didn’t really differ much from <br />what it is now. It was still the 80-foot-wide lots versus the half-acre lots as some of the residents <br />had suggested. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell commented that she wouldn’t be supporting the project. She has concerns <br />about the traffic it is going to bring to the City and the accidents that could occur if the County <br />road issues aren’t resolved. She stated she couldn’t support that coming into the community. <br /> <br />Planning Manager McGuire Brigl commented that she was confirming with the administrative <br />staff that notice was sent for the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the legal newspaper. She <br />has a copy of it in her email inbox for review. She suggested a revised motion for Council to <br />consider to increase transparency for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This included an <br />additional notice and public hearing at the January 27, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and <br />review at the February 8, 2022 City Council meeting. She stated this wouldn’t increase the <br />timeline for the applicant and there would be additional time for residents to speak on the <br />Comprehensive Plan amendment as a stand-alone item. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht suggested that when public hearings come up, it could be posted on the <br />City’s Facebook and other social media along with the mailings. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked for discussion about the buildings that are going to be acquired <br />as a part of the park. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented he believed that was a part of a different case. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen replied that she was referencing the <br />park acquiring the farm site and a consideration to turn that into a larger community park in the <br />future, which would be a part of this case. As far as a long-term plan for the park, that would come <br />back at a later date. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that the Council had requested the cost of the building and <br />the cost to renovate it, which the Council just received in an email today. There has not been time <br />to discuss it but she felt it was worth discussion and having information about it as a part of the <br />public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked for clarification on the items that are contingent in the <br />resolutions for the plat, noting they are more around park dedication fees rather than what was <br />emailed. He asked for clarification on how they are related since the Council will see the park <br />plan and more financial information about what the park will look like. He asked Deputy City <br />Administrator Hagen to talk about the implications of the email that was received today as it <br />pertains to this case. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen replied tonight before the Council is <br />the development as a whole and as a part of the development, there are various fees associated that <br />City Council / January 11, 2022 <br />Page 11 of 25 <br /> <br />