2015-07-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 12 Council to see their preferences in developing the property; with drainage management 552 and grading issues being of the utmost concern by the City Council. Based on the 553 conclusions from that discussion, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the adjustments made by Mr. 554 Mueller to develop a stormwater plan with no overland flow routing as much as possible; 555 identifying four infiltration areas as displayed on the map; and pending requirements of 556 the City Engineer and Watershed District as applicable. 557 Mr. Lloyd provided a brief plat analysis as detailed in the staff report; private street as 558 requested by the City Council; with further curb detail and required easements, as well as 559 a final tree preservation plan addressed calculated as part of the approval process. Mr. 560 Lloyd noted that due to the private versus public street, and maintenance of the 561 stormwater plan, a homeowners association would be required to fund both. 562 As part of tonight’s discussion by the Planning Commission, Mr. Lloyd suggested they 563 may want to talk more about the balance for residential parking on the street and whether 564 adequate off-street parking for guests was available to minimize impervious surface area. 565 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff recommended approval of the Preliminary plat as 566 conditioned. 567 For the benefit of new Commissioners, Chair Boguszewski further addressed the 568 evolution of this request; and the Commission’s unanimous recommendation to the City 569 Council for approval of the previous request, based on the City Engineer at that time 570 believing water drainage issues were sufficiently addressed even in that earlier proposal. 571 However, Chair Boguszewski noted that the City Council subsequently took a more 572 conservative approach and still questioned the drainage issues as well as several other 573 items; and denied the request in spite of the Planning Commission’s recommendation; 574 and the additional points as now listed. Chair Boguszewski opined that it appeared that 575 those remaining issues articulated by the City Council had been addressed; and that the 576 project currently before the Commission was if anything even better than the original 577 proposal. 578 Mr. Lloyd concurred that improvements had been made; and while the last proposal met 579 all the strict requirements of the City built in without further negotiability, there remained 580 some discretionary flexibility taken advantage of in that previous proposal and supported 581 by both the staff and the Commission. However, Mr. Lloyd noted this application toed the 582 line even more. 583 Chair Boguszewski noted two points the City Council wanted addressed: that of a 32’ 584 wide street and minimizing impervious surfaces. Chair Boguszewski noted that the new 585 proposal achieves that, but noted staff’s wish for the Commission to address if the 586 balance may, or should be, shifted the other way with a narrower street at 28’. 587 Chair Boguszewski stated, with this particular property and project, it didn’t want to make 588 that determination and preferred that the City Council have that final decision. 589 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd addressed construction standards for private 590 streets compared with public streets, with standards essentially the same. 591 Regarding the 195’ street design length standards to avoid the need for a dead-end or 592 turnaround, Mr. Lloyd confirmed for Member Murphy that the developer was just meeting 593 that threshold. Mr. Lloyd addressed further clarifications by Member Murphy related to 594 parking on a private street and vehicle parking and sizes for private driveways. 595 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had fielded only one 596 additional public comment since distribution of the meeting packet; with a phone call from 597 a resident on Marion Road calling in opposition to the project, based on further 598 subdividing the existing lot and changing the character of the neighborhood by removing 599 the one remaining large lot in the community. 600