2013_08_07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 7, 2013 Page 8 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan. Eventually as development or redevelopment occurs, 346 Mr. Brokke advised that a park dedication is part of that growth; with the goal of creating even 347 more of a buffer or protection in that area as development came forward. Mr. Brokke reiterated 348 that this parcel is a significant part of that buffer to preserve the Oak forest and natural area, as is 349 the intent for managing that area. 350 Member Murphy opined that the overall goal of buffering around Langton Lake seemed difficult, 351 with other industrial uses and their respective parking lots, such as the area south of County 352 Road C-2 and truck terminals abutting that now. While preserving older trees seemed a 353 worthwhile goal, Member Murphy further opined that he wasn’t sure if the cost and overall 354 success is adequately measurable with the goals. 355 Mr. Brokke clarified that there was a significant amount of room on the south between the Park 356 and future developments; and that the regulating maps addressed those situations at previous 357 discussions among the Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council; and their goal of 358 creating and preserving the tree line area between to preserve that buffering. 359 Further discussion included possible scenarios if the City did not purchase that ¾ acre parcel, 360 and future uses under the CMU zoning designation; and tree preservation. 361 Mr. Paschke advised that parcels in this area had already been identified as being sensitive; and 362 questioned if the subject parcel was even developable under the CMU designation given its 363 topography and limited uses available. From staff’s point of view if someone acquired the subject 364 parcel and adjacent land for development, Mr. Paschke opined that they would need to achieve 365 the same goals of the regulating plan and dedicate park land to the City as a buffer, as negotiable 366 with the Parks & Recreation Commission. Based on the regulating plan, Mr. Paschke opined that 367 he could not fathom that area developing accordingly based on the parcels themselves; and 368 further opined that the parcels were more amenable for preserving and buffering existing open 369 space and park land. 370 Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that if the City did not acquire the land and it was eventually sold to a 371 developer and dedication of land applied, the Commission would still be responsible to review 372 that acquisition for dedication to determine its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. 373 Lloyd clarified that the role of the Commission was not one of cost-benefit analysis, but in whether 374 or not the City’s natural resources were being preserved; and whether an acquisition or use was 375 consistent or inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan guidance. 376 Member Daire asked staff is the phrase “in compliance” was the same as “consistent with.” 377 Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively for this purpose; while noting that there may be other situations 378 where it would be important to distinguish between those two; but for this specific purpose the two 379 were synonymous. 380 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that both the map and policy statements 381 detailed in the staff report were taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s policies and 382 positions, as well as that of the map and zoning code. Mr. Lloyd clarified that by definition in this 383 case; this particular land area is shown as CMU land use designation and therefore was not 384 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, even though the purpose was to expand 385 green/open space designations as was the nature of the Comprehensive Plan throughout. Mr. 386 Lloyd opined that the fact that the green boundary ends on the Comprehensive Plan map or 387 expands as displayed remained immaterial and the land acquisition was found to be consistent 388 with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan no matter current map areas. 389 Member Daire noted that, on the displayed aerial photo, it appeared that there were additional 390 trees to the south and west of the subject parcel; and he questioned if they were the same type 391 as those of the subject property. 392 Mr. Lloyd opined that there appeared to be some visually difference in the type of trees of the 393 subject parcel and those of surrounding properties; however, previous reviews of the area and 394 sensitive areas with mature trees had consistently found it desirable to preserve them for open 395 space purpose, including the parcels west and south of the subject parcel. Mr. Lloyd further 396