2011-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 02, 2011 Page 5 unknown. Mr. Wicklund advised that based on current use, the site drained northerly; 201 however, when demolition was done and the site graded, grades were revised inward 202 onto the site and drained the site northerly into the stormwater system, providing 203 adequate drainage for the interim and providing additional space as lots develop. 204 Sanitary Sewer 205 Mr. Wicklund noted that the sanitary sewer was already in place on this developed site, 206 and while talked about to-date only conceptually, it was proposed to provide a ten inch 207 (10”) extension connecting to the manhole and south to another location, meeting City 208 design criteria. Mr. Wicklund advised that to make the sanitary sewer possible would 209 require an easement outside existing right-of-way for installation and maintenance; and 210 assured Members that it was more than sufficient to meet City requirements. 211 At the request of Member Gottfried, Ms. Bloom confirmed that she had not yet reviewed 212 the sanitary sewer proposal from the consulting engineer in detail. 213 Sidewalk 214 Mr. Wicklund advised that there was adequate room for a five foot (5’) walk on the west 215 side of Walnut, as well as sufficient room within the right-of-way for installation of that 216 sidewalk. 217 Mr. Wicklund noted that the Planning Commission did not have the detailed information 218 available for their review for this meeting, he assured Members that all outstanding 219 components were doable. 220 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 7:28 p.m.; no one appeared for or against. 221 Member Gottfried advised that, without the City Engineer’s detailed review, a request for 222 approval was premature, and while it created challenges to meet the 60-day land use 223 review process, it prevented due diligence by the Planning Commission. Member 224 Gottfried opined that the Planning Commission relied on staff’s analysis and sign off for 225 any review, and even with assurances by the Applicant’s consulting engineer, and by City 226 Engineer Bloom, he further opined that it was in the best interest of the City to delay 227 approval, following more detailed review and recommendation of the City Engineer. 228 Chair Boerigter recognized Member Gottfried’s concerns, and advised that in many 229 circumstances, he would agree. However, in reviewing this request, and based on the 230 verbal comments of the City Engineer, as well as the recommendation condition of staff 231 that remaining engineering details be addressed prior to approval by the City Council, he 232 found no rationale for delaying action. Chair Boerigter advised that, no matter how those 233 more technical requirements were worked out, they were beyond his ability to discern, 234 and he expressed his confidence in staff’s analysis and recommendations at the City 235 Council level; and that those final issues did not impact his decision-making or moving 236 this request forward based on those contingencies. 237 Member Gisselquist expressed his inclination to concur with Member Gottfried, noting 238 that there remained two (2) areas where missing data was obvious. Member Gisselquist 239 noted that this was a public forum designed for public comment; and that the Commission 240 needed to do their due diligence prior to making a recommendation to the City Council 241 and not depend on the City Council to take time to review those technical questions. 242 Member Gisselquist advised that he was inclined to deny the request, or support a 243 motion to continue, pending receipt of the additional information. 244 Member Best concurred with Chair Boerigter, supporting moving forward with the request 245 and supporting it; expressing his confidence in the City Engineer making 246 recommendation for any final approval based on technical data received. 247 Member Wozniak advised that, under normal circumstances, he would request more 248 detail; however, in this case, he was unsure of what he could add above and beyond the 249 assurances by City Engineer Bloom that all was in order. Member Wozniak expressed his 250 confidence in relying on Ms. Bloom’s expertise and final review by the Development 251 Review Committee (DRC) to make those technical decisions on any outstanding issues. 252