2015-09-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 Page 11 Public Comment 505 Mike Flanagan, 1016 Woodhill 506 Mr. Flanagan reminded everyone that Woodhill Drive was still a county road, which 507 should be considered in discussions regarding easements. 508 Also, noting current stormwater pooling during heavy rains on the 1059 and 1051 509 addressed parcels, Mr. Flanagan asked that developers use caution in moving and 510 relocating stormwater management to take advantage of the lowest point on Woodhill 511 Drive to move water as quickly as possible, which he’d frequently seen ready up to 4’ and 512 stall vehicles. Mr. Flanagan also noted the existing stormwater pone at the bottom of 513 County Road C and that connection with Lake Bennett; and asked that drainage from this 514 new development, including oil and fuel from vehicles on site, be addressed to ensure an 515 environmental collection point is available to handle those new materials and filter them 516 before reaching the lake. 517 While understanding this is a preliminary plat, Mr. Flanagan stated “we love our trees,” 518 and noted a recent development (Josephine Heights) immediately north on Lexington 519 Avenue where a majority of the mature trees had been removed to make room for the 520 development, with 400 removed and not many replaced. Mr. Flanagan questioned 521 whether, in reality, 360 trees could be fit back on this parcel after development; and 522 suggested looking at facilitating some of those required replacement trees along Wood 523 hill Drive as boulevard trees, since many of the existing trees along that roadway are 524 mature and starting to die. Mr. Flanagan further noted perhaps the allotted tree 525 replacement could be handled through new trees for residents in that area as well. 526 While recognizing that United Properties may be able to replace trees on other lots, since 527 this will add additional traffic to the area, Mr. Flanagan asked that it be made as attractive 528 as possible, making it better than it is currently without losing more trees in this existing 529 natural wildlife area and protecting the integrity of that park-like area. 530 Regarding any park dedication fee, if it was going to be used elsewhere in the community 531 instead of immediately adjacent to this site, Mr. Flanagan asked that it not be too far from 532 the development area to keep the money in the neighborhood. 533 Mr. Flanagan admitted he and other neighbors were concerned about additional traffic, 534 especially with weekend traffic being heavier, and in light of the potential development at 535 the other end of the block having even more impact; again asking that the traffic-related 536 integrity of the neighborhood also be addressed. 537 Based on the type of facility and limited resident vehicles for this use, Mr. Flanagan 538 asked why the developer needed a garage and also asked how large that garage would 539 be. 540 Mr. Nelson 541 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Nelson responded that the garage floor would 542 have approximately fifty parking stalls, and since this facility will offer a continuum of care 543 and services, there may be a few residents that will initially retain their cars, perhaps 544 involving up to half of the units. Mr. Nelson advised that depending on the season, some 545 key staff people may also park their vehicles in the garage. However, Mr. Nelson clarified 546 that the garage space would provide storage for the facility as well as for residents, 547 including other building storage that may be required. Mr. Nelson advised that the garage 548 would not involve the entire building footprint, and with four wings to the building, it would 549 not involve the wing toward Lexington Avenue in an effort to preserve those existing 550 trees. 551 Regarding stormwater management, Mr. Nelson advised that the development proposed 552 to relocate the sanitary sewer line, not the storm sewer line, since right now, for whatever 553 reason, if followed a straight line south of Woodhill Drive running directly to their property. 554 Mr. Nelson advised that the developer was proposing to relocate that sanitary sewer line 555 to tie it from the south end around the building to the north end of Woodhill Drive. 556