2015-06-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Page 9 message back to the City Council for them to consider relooking at the acquisition toward 391 the goal of saving purchase money. 392 Member Gitzen sought clarification if the trigger for acquisition of the property was the 393 proposed utility drainage easement as part of the roadway construction; and the minimal 394 difference in acquiring only the easement area compared to the whole parcel. 395 Mr. Lloyd concurred with Member Gitzen’s portrayal, noting the marginal cost difference 396 that would further advance goals of the City as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. 397 If the acquisition proceeds, Member Stellmach asked if there was any other change 398 proposed for the parcel or if it would remain as is. 399 Mr. Lloyd stated that, physically the only change he was aware of would be in the wetland 400 area; but future action may come before the Commission for reguiding the property from 401 its current single-family residential zoning designation to Park/Open Space designation. 402 Given the nature of remaining property beyond proposed wetland needs, Member 403 Stellmach questioned if there was any other plan for the remainder of the parcel, possibly 404 for single-family housing. 405 Mr. Lloyd responded that this would not be possible if the City acquired the parcel and 406 changed its regulatory guidance and zoning; and acquisition of the easement would 407 actually isolate the only remaining portion that could be built on and have access to 408 Victory Street, making any development difficult from a practical standpoint. 409 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke stated that it may be possible to 410 construct a home on the western portion of the lot at this time, but it would be a unique 411 building site to work with. 412 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd advised that this parcel was owned by the 413 same owner as the adjacent parcel. 414 Chair Boguszewski reiterated the role of the Commission in this decision. 415 While recognizing it was not part of the Commission’s role, Member Stellmach offered his 416 personal experience in biking along this stretch and attempting to cross the road but 417 finding it precarious as well, as noted by Mr. Lloyd. 418 Chair Boguszewski opined it could be a simple solution of painting stripes. 419 Member Daire opined it could be accomplished by a pedestrian crossing flasher or other 420 notice in concert with the roadway construction. 421 Member Gitzen opined that he found rationale for the proposed acquisition well laid-out in 422 the staff report, that it met the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and from his 423 perspective, he found that it fit well. 424 Chair Boguszewski, and Members Cunningham and Daire concurred. 425 Member Bull questioned if any study had been done on negative impacts on wildlife, 426 since he had observed significant deer in that area, and wondered whether by cutting off 427 the parkand access it might concentrate those deer on crossing Victoria Street, thereby 428 imperiling drivers and deer on that narrow corridor. 429 While a consideration, Mr. Lloyd stated that he did not know to what extend wildlife had 430 been reviewed. 431 Chair Boguszewski questioned if wildlife protection was addressed at all in the 432 Comprehensive Plan. 433 Mr. Paschke suggested if so, it might be in the natural resources section, but beyond 434 that, it would need to be discussed with the City’s Engineering Department for their 435 assessment as to whether this might cut off wildlife access.As with other changes 436 occurring in an urban environment, Mr. Paschke noted deer and wildlife typically find 437 other options, which would most likely prove true in this area as well. 438