2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 6 specifying that the Planning Division and Property Developer would work toward an 246 amicable solution. 247 Further discussion included the standard right-of-way width and code flexibility based on 248 the roadway’s identification as a marginal access road and attempting to reduce long- 249 term maintenance costs for the City and more green space and less asphalt; and 250 clarifying that the developer had originally proposed a larger width cul-de-sac, but the 251 Public Works/Engineering Department had asked him to reduce the width and exclude 252 the proposed island. 253 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke reviewed the City’s tree preservation 254 policy in detail and how it would be quantified. Mr. Paschke advised that a majority of 255 existing trees would be removed from the site due to the location for proposed 256 construction, their condition or species, with only 3-5 probably preserved as part of the 257 current development proposal; and reviewed the City’s preservation ordinance. Of the 258 approximately 32 trees currently on site, Mr. Paschke advised that a number of them laid 259 within easements, right-of-way or pond/road areas and would be allowed to be removed. 260 In his personal review, Mr. Paschke advised that he accepted the proposed plan; but that 261 the developer would be required to provide replacement trees of similar or additional 262 caliper inches on the site so there would be no net loss in the caliper number. Regarding 263 trees on neighboring properties, Mr. Paschke further advised that the City’s Code and 264 Policy further addressed requirements to protect them through fencing at their drip line 265 and other considerations. Mr. Paschke advised that, from his perspective and review of 266 the proposed plan presented by the developer, it was fairly straight forward and opined 267 that the plan was one that could be worked through based on other City Code 268 requirements and administrative processes during the preliminary plat process. 269 At the request of Member Murphy related to impact on trees on neighboring properties 270 during excavation and construction, Mr. Paschke advised that he had not found any 271 significant issue with the grading plan as submitted and specific to those property lines. 272 Mr. Paschke reiterated that those trees would need to be protected near their drip line; 273 but assured all that staff would be monitoring the entire process, and would require 274 protective fencing if and when necessary; and that staff would work with the developer on 275 those situations and concerns. 276 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke advised that he didn’t have any 277 estimate on the number of new trees that may be needed to create a screen, as that was 278 not required by code per lot, just via the caliper inch. Mr. Paschke reiterated that staff 279 would be working with the developer throughout the process. 280 Public Comment 281 Staff provided two written comments, one e-mail and one letter from Rod Petras, 282 982 Lydia Drive and Greg & Jody McElroy, 905 Millwood Avenue, respectively. 283 Paul Rossbach, 953 Millwood Avenue 284 Being located just west of the proposed development, Mr. Rossbach expressed his 285 concerns over elevation issues, and sought further clarification from staff on those issues, 286 including the definition of map designations. 287 Mr. Rossbach addressed his perception of garage and basement floors and footings, 288 opining that the homes on those lots would be so high the neighboring properties would 289 drown. Mr. Rossbach noted that his yard was flat, and having been in the construction 290 industry for over thirty (30) years, the developer was taking flat land and not installing a 291 full basement, and the height of the proposed homes, depending on whether one or two 292 story, would drown the road below, by raising the elevation and forcing water down 293 toward neighbors. Mr. Rossbach opined that the neighbor to his immediate east would 294 have the greatest issues; and further opined that this couldn’t possibly work. Mr. 295 Rossbach further stated that part of the concern of the neighbor behind being concerned 296 with headlight penetration was due to the cul-de-sac raised up 7’ off Millwood. While 297 admitting he was not a surveyor, Mr. Rossbach addressed additional elevation concerns 298