Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 5, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1981 City Hall Council Chambers MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairman Jean Hillyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Commissioners present were Theda Havice, Pat Himmelman, Dewayne Hood, Louise Novasad and Dana Peters. Also present were Mayor Don Jones and Councilmember Donna Higginbotham. City Staff present were Administrator David Kucera and Fire Chief Dave Penicook. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 24, 1981 Study Session Motion was made by Commissioner Havice to approve these minutes. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. April 7 1981 Planning Commission Meeting A motion was made by Commissioner Hood to approve these minutes. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. April 21 1981 Planning Commission Meeting A. motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman to approve these minutes as written. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Novasad. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. BUSINESS Stonecreek III Plat Review Administrator Kucera gave a historical review of the Stonecreek Subdivision. The Preliminary Plat was approved in 1977. Phase I has been developed. An original Phase II was planned to be developed which consisted of the remainder Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1981 - page 2 of the proposed Subdivision. However, that phase was sold to two different _ developers. Developer Mike Mahar purchased the easterly portion of the origin Phase II. That portion has been given final plat approval by the Planning Commission and is now called Stonecreek II. The westerly portion of the origi Phase 11 was purchased by Gary Whittle and that subdivision is now called Ston creek III. Administrator Rucera noted that there were several substandard lots proposed in the final plat of Stonecreek III. A discussion followed on whether or not to allow these substandard lots. The discussion centered around Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Block 10, and Lot 5 of Block 9,and Lots 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Block 8, and Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Block 6, and Lot 3 of Block 5. Chairman Hillyer called a break at 8:16 P.M. and called the meeting back to order at 8:32 P.M. A discussion followed on whether or not the Developer should be present before the Planning Commission continued discussion of the proposed final plat. It was a concensus of the group that they would proceed without the Developer. A discussion followed on the type of surety bond that the Planning Commission preferred. It was noted that the ordinances allow for 3 types of surety bonds. A bond from a licensed surety company or a cash deposit or the signature of a personal surety. It was noted that in the case of personal surety bond, there was no collateral backing the bond. It was simply the signature of an individual promising to complete the subdivision should the developer fail to do so. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission to recommend to the Council that I they,use a licensed bond company for surety. bonds. The Planning Commission again discussed whether or not to allow variances which would be necessary to approve the final plat as proposed. A motion was made by Commissioner Hood to not allow any variances to the lot size requirements. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Havice. Commissioners Hood, Peters and Novasad voted yes. Commissioners Himmelman, Hillyer and Havice voted no. Chairman Hillyer stated that it was a tie vote and the motion failed. A discussion continued on needed -variances to the lot width requirements.. Developer Gary Whittle arrived. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to not accept Lot 5 of Block 9. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. A discussion followed and later in the meeting the motion and the second were withdrawn. A discussion followed on whether or not to allow a lot width variance to Lot 6 of Block 8 and whether or not to require a 15-foot wide pedestrian way. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to require the Subdivider to revise Lots 4 and 5 of Block 9 in order to provide a minimum 50-foot frontage to Lot 5 and revise Lots 5 and 6 of Block 8 to require a minimum of a 50-foot frontge for each of these lots by reducing the proposed pedestrian way width, but not a less than a width of 8 feet, and accept variances to. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Block 10 and Lots 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Block 8, and Lots 11, 13, 14 and 15 of Block 6, and Lot 3 of Block 5 as shown on the proposed plat. A second to Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1981 - page 3 the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. Commissioners Novasad, Himmelman and Havice voted yes. Commissioners Hillyer, Hood and Peters voted no. It was a tie vote and the motion failed. Further discussion followed on whether or not to grant the lot width variances shown on the proposed final plat. Gary Whittle explained the original Stonecreek II final plat had already been approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hood noted that the plat before them had been changed from that original approval, therefore this review is considered a re-submittal. A discussion continued on the necessity for variances to the lot widths. The necessary variances were outlined on the blackboard for review. The lot widths were written down which were shown on the original 1977 preliminary plan and the original Stonecreek Phase II and the proposed Stonecreek III. The variances which had been previously approved by the Planning Commission were also noted. The lots which were detailed in this manner were Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 10, and Lots 4, 5 of Block 9, and Lots 5 and 6 of Block 8, and Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Block 6, and Lot 5 of Block 3. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to require the Subdivider to revise Lots 4 and 5 of Block 9 in order to provide a minimum 50-foot frontage to Lot 5 and revise Lots 5 and 6 of Block 8 to require a minimum of a 50-foot frontage for @ach of these lots by reducing the .proposed pedestrian .way width, but not less than a. width of 8 feet, and accept variances to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Block 10 and Lots 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Block 8, and Lots 11, 13, 14 and 15 of Block 6, and Lot 3 of Block 5 as shown on the proposed plat. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. Novasad, Himmelman, Hillyer, Havice and Peters voted yes. Commissioner Hood voted no. The motion was approved. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to recommend approval of Stonecreek III with the previously approved variances and conditions to those variances and to require the subdivider to provide a bond, subdivision agreement and enact the 15-foot dedication along Snowy Butte Road. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. A discussion followed on whether or not this motion was appropriate because the bond and subdivision agreement had not yet been prepared. Commissioner Havice withdrew her motion and Commissioner Himmelman withdrew her second. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to extend the Planning Commission's meeting past 10 o'clock to allow a vote on Stonecreek III final plat. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. A discussion followed. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to request the Developer to bring the revised plat and necessary related information back to the Planning Commission for their review. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Novasad. Gary Whittle noted that he did not plan to bond the improvements to Stonecreek III Subdivision. He will complete the construction for a new Phase I Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1981. - page 4 and then ask for a final plat approval. The new Phase I will consist of all of those lots shown on Page 3 of 3 of the proposed final plat and Lots 24 and 25 of Block 8 and Lots 4 and 5 of Block 9. All Commissioners voted yes on the motion and the motion was approved. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS There were no miscellaneous matters. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Novasad to adjourn. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Chairman Hillyer adjourned the meeting at about 10:30 P.M.