Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Consent Agenda topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission approves consent agenda: Maple Grove plat, 113 Stokes site plan and Don Fox Park splash pad

5465105 · July 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission approved three consent-agenda items: a preliminary plat for Reserve at Maple Grove (approx. 14.95 acres) in Ward 1, a 6-unit residential site plan at 113 Stokes in Ward 2, and city project approval for the Don Fox Park splash pad in Ward 1.

The city planning commission approved three consent-agenda items without objection: preliminary plat approval for Reserve at Maple Grove, site-plan approval for a six-unit residential development at 113 Stokes Street, and city project approval for a splash pad at Don Fox Park.

Consent item 1, requested by CDT Cedar Creek Partnership, sought preliminary plat approval for Reserve at Maple Grove, a two-lot subdivision on roughly 14.95 acres on Carver Lane in Ward 1, zoned Commercial Neighborhood. Consent item 2, requested by 12 Stones Development Corporation, requested site-plan approval for 113 Stokes, a six-unit residential development on about 0.5 acres in R-2 zoning in Ward 2. Consent item 3, presented by Kristen Rice, executive director of engineering and planning, and Jake Pruett, capital projects manager, requested city project approval for the Don Fox Park splash pad at 955 West Pador Parkway in Ward 1; staff had no remaining comments on that item.

A commissioner asked whether anyone objected to placing the three items on the consent agenda; with no objections the commission approved the consent agenda by voice vote.

These items will proceed under the standard review and permitting steps identified in staff reports. The Don Fox Park splash pad was presented as a city project with staff listed as the project proponents; funding and construction details were in the project packet referenced during the meeting but not discussed at length in the public hearing.