2015-01-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, December 3, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Paschke pointed out a typographical error in the staff report, page 2, line 10, advising 92 that the Hampton Inn would be 5 stories as well, so both hotels would be of five stories. 93 Mr. Paschke further advised of an additional condition recommended by staff after 94 distribution of the staff report, and as discussed before tonight’s meeting with property 95 owners and their representatives. 96 Community Development Director Paul Bilotta read the additional Condition G as follows 97 and related to access easements: 98 “The applicant will dedicate access easements across the property to serve 99 adjacent parcels in a form as approved by the City Attorney and Community 100 Development Director.” 101 Discussion 102 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke advised that the exact location for 103 potential access point requirements may not be identifiable through the planning process, 104 but they would be defined by engineers and the traffic study as part of the process; with 105 any changes available before or at the time of final plat approval, along with rights-of-way 106 easement dedications, public improvement contracts as needed, and other 107 documentation as required as part of the process. 108 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that Community Mixed Use 109 zoning (CMU) had no height limit or number of stories. 110 Member Murphy requested what the governing documents were, since the AUAR had 111 expired, noting mention of the EAW waiver request. 112 Mr. Paschke advised that, in September of 2012, the AUAR guiding document 113 (Alternative Urban Area-wide Review) had expired, and in its place in October of 2012, 114 the City Council had established a policy that all developments would go through the 115 process of a voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) following 116 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) guidelines.Mr. Paschke noted that this applicant, 117 as well as the applicant on the parcel sough of this one had requested the variance from 118 the City Council.Mr. Paschke advised that staff was in the process of working through 119 that waiver request; with a presentation planned before the City Council at their next 120 regular business meeting seeking their support for a different process, or seeking 121 direction from them related to development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.Mr. 122 Paschke advised that they may determine that this project be required to complete a 123 voluntary EAW or provide them with another option. 124 Mr. Paschke advised that the formal EAW process can be lengthy and require a lotof 125 information running through the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB, but was similar 126 to the voluntary EAW administered by the city and tied into the former AUAR, which he 127 opined was still a useful document.Mr. Paschke noted that many items hadn’t changed: 128 traffic was still a concern with anproject or development as well as the clean-upof the 129 land, both issues the City wanted additional information on.Mr. Paschke advised that it 130 was staff’s hope to have a consistent process established for developers aware of the 131 process they’re required to completeprior to any permit approvals. 132 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Bilotta advised that typically a Phase I 133 Environmental Study was required by banks, and was basically a database search of 134 various sources and aerial photos to make a determination about environmental 135 conditions or anything that may have prompted any environmental issues, without 136 probing the ground.Mr. Bilotta advised that the EAW was intended to review the plat. 137 With the parcel serving as an old truck site, Member Murphy opined that he would 138 suspect chemical contamination. 139 Mr. Bilotta advised that Phase I would determine if a Phase II was required; and clarified 140 that cities were not typically provided a copy; and if there were indications that a 141