2016-01-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 2 considerations; with the City’s Engineers continuing to work with the applicant and review 45 requirements or changes to ensure the project continued to conform to city code and 46 watershed requirements throughout the process. 47 Mr. Lloyd briefly reviewed the tree preservation reviewed by the City’s tree consultant 48 Mark Rehder, S & S Tree Service,with monitoring continuing as the project proceeded. 49 Specific to Park Dedication, Mr. Lloyd reported that with two additional lots, the Parks & 50 Recreation Commission had determined cash in lieu of land. 51 As noted in the staff report (line 99), Mr. Lloyd advised that the Development review 52 Committee (DRC) provided several comments for recommendation, and highlighted the 53 need for including Item D (lines 121 –123) to ensure a homeowners association be a 54 condition of approval to ensure long-term private street and stormwater infrastructure 55 maintenance remains intact. 56 Discussion 57 Chair Boguszewski asked for clarification if the additional flow capacity for Acorn Road 58 was new or had been there before; and whether the City Engineer had an estimate of the 59 total flow pulled toward Acorn Road and away from that southwest corner. 60 Mr. Lloyd responded that the routing is new for this iteration of the OakAcres 61 Development proposal, as in the past runoff was routed to rain gardens at the southwest 62 corner of the proposed development.Mr. Lloyd reported that the City Engineer had not 63 specifically isolated the total flow from the southwest corner now proposed to be directed 64 to Acorn Road stormwater infrastructure, but the difference in volume of stormwater 65 leaving the southwest corner ofthis proposal versus previous iterations reduced that 66 runoff by approximately 58% for a 100 year rain event calculation.At the request of Chair 67 Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd clarified that (as noted in line 106 of the staff report) overall flow 68 was actually reduced by approximately 82% with this latest development proposal, and 69 reduced 58% from the previous iteration.As noted by Chair Boguszewski, this provided 70 the neighborhood with an approximate 82% improvement in stormwater flow compared to 71 current runoff flowing from the property. 72 On line 113, Chair Boguszewski questioned the subjective term “aggressive proposal” 73 and asked Mr. Lloyd to describe what was intended for a homeowners association and 74 their financial burden. 75 Mr. Lloyd advised that that term originated with review by the City’s Public Works 76 Department, and opined the proposal was certainly aggressive in the sense it provided 77 many places for water infiltration for rate control, and significantly reduces current rates 78 and volumes.However, Mr. Lloyd noted there was also a cost component and need to 79 make sure funding remained available long-term to address those many maintenance 80 components and their complexities. 81 Member Murphynoted that water runofffrom the subject site to neighboring properties 82 had continued to be of great concern in past iterations, and asked staff if this iteration 83 was implemented as designed indicated only 18 gallons of stormwater runoff.Member 84 Murphy asked if there would be anycost to the city for connectingand diverting 85 stormwater flow to the Acorn Road system or if itwould borne entirely by the developer. 86 Mr. Lloyd clarified that runoff was measured by cubic feet per second, not gallon, and 87 confirmed that 100 year rain event model numbers indicated that would be the case and 88 as compared with typical rain events where stormwater runoff should easily be addressed 89 through infiltration of one mode or another.Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the cost to divert 90 stormwater flow to the Acorn Road infrastructure would be at the cost of the developer to 91 implement. 92 Member Murphy asked staff for a comparison with this latest tree removal plan with that 93 of the most recent past iteration. 94