2013_08_07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 7, 2013 Page 7 Member Daire opined that it struck him that by deleting the parcel from potential 295 commercial/industrial use, it made the remaining parcels more difficult to develop; and asked for 296 staff comment on that observation. 297 Mr. Lloyd advised that his only response was that the subject parcel is surrounded by significantly 298 challenging topography that would require considerable grading to make it developable. At the 299 request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd noted that, while the topography was similar to that at County 300 Road C and Cleveland Avenue, this parcel was much closer to the sensitive Langton Lake area; 301 and the City’s desire to protect that asset as well as adding to Open Space around it, meeting 302 City development goals as previously noted. 303 Lonnie Brokke 304 Mr. Brokke clarified that there had no recent discussion regarding a buffer for the south or west 305 end of the Park; however, he noted that ongoing discussions held earlier had included discussion 306 on potential development scenarios of that area. Mr. Brokke noted that a significant reason why 307 the City is interested in acquiring this property is to create that buffer on the west; with a future 308 buffer on the south side desired on the south as well. 309 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Brokke confirmed that acquisition of this property was due to 310 the desire by the City to buffer a sensitive resource in this CMU zoning district. Mr. Brokke noted 311 that protecting its natural assets is always a goal of the City as surrounding land became 312 available, and given the willingness of this property owner to divest itself of this property it 313 benefited both parties. Mr. Brokke noted that this property owner had approached the City with 314 their interest in selling the subject parcel. 315 Mr. Lloyd noted that the City’s current regulating plan governing this area and its boundary had 316 previously identified this parcel and additional surrounding parcels on the south as land that 317 would prove beneficial to increase the park buffer and provide better access to the park on the 318 north. 319 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the Park was currently separated by a 320 street to the north of the subject property, County Road C-2; and that the area consisted of 321 primarily warehouse and light industrial uses; with the preference to buffer the park from that 322 commercial use and any future commercial redevelopment in that immediate area. 323 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the current regulatory plan was 324 intended to require park dedication by developers to buffer land between any CMU designated 325 use and the Park; while further clarifying that the regulating plan did not guarantee that in specific 326 areas without further negotiation between developers and the City to ensure a City-owned buffer 327 or privately-held land served to provide that buffering function. 328 City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that while the objectives of providing a buffer through park 329 dedication fees or land acquisition with willing sellers of property similar to this parcel, it was not 330 always guaranteed, but a process was in place that could allow the City to protect those sensitive 331 areas and provide additional value to park and open space assets. Specific to this situation, Mr. 332 Paschke noted that the sensitive area was significant due to the existing mature Oak trees on this 333 parcel. 334 Member Daire sought to clarify that staff has assured the Commission that passive use of this 335 particular parcel is not inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code. 336 Mr. Lloyd advised that the Commission was tasked to make those findings based on the 337 information provided by staff in their analysis; and clarified that staff’s analysis of the City’s 338 Community Development and Park & Recreation Departments, found that the proposed 339 acquisition of this parcel was consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the highlighted 340 sections of the Comprehensive Plan and the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. 341 While not speaking specifically to staff assurances, Mr. Lloyd concurred with Member Daire’s 342 interpretation that the proposed acquisition was not inconsistent with those goals and policies. 343 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Brokke advised that the goal of this property acquisition is 344 to protect sensitive open space, specifically the Oak Forest; and that it was consistent with the 345