2016-01-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 4 asked for comment on this latest iteration without a cul-de-sac to facilitate that, as well as 147 addressing whether or not widening the street to 32’ would alleviate emergency vehicle 148 access issues. 149 Mr. Plowe noted that, with this iteration, the road had been shortened 25’ from the 150 previously Planning Commission-approved development proposal, making the actual 151 length of the street quite short. 152 City Planner ThomasPaschke clarified that concerns were raised by an individual 153 Councilmember or from area residents, he couldn’t readily remember.However, Mr. 154 Paschke noted that the Fire Department was part of the DRC in reviewing any proposal, 155 and had indicated no areas of concern.Mr. Paschke advised that this private street would 156 be similar to local streets having parking on both sides, traffic, and delivery vehicles all 157 having access, in addition to being able to accommodate emergency vehicle access. 158 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Plowe advised that, while he didn’t have actual 159 impervious surface calculations available for this iteration compared to previous 160 proposals, impervious surfaces had been reduced by eliminating one proposed building 161 site and driveway, estimating that alone would reduce it by approximately 1,000 feet. 162 Developer and Property Owner Art Mueller 163 Mr. Mueller stated that the road would now be so short it was shorter than his existing 164 driveway.Mr. Mueller opined that there should be no problems fordelivery or emergency 165 vehicles; and noted that due to the short private road, residents would actually haultheir 166 garbage out to Acorn Road. 167 Public Comment 168 Mr. S.Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road 169 Mr. Ramalingam reviewed various elevations, gradients, and his calculations with the 170 proposed grading plan and stormwater basins; and potential impacts to Mr. Irv Cross’s 171 property on the east side.Mr. Ramalingam further addressed the flow moving from this 172 site to the 8” drain into Acorn Road infrastructure, and questioned if it would be able to 173 accommodate that additional flow, seeking further evaluation by the City Engineer as to 174 how many inches per hour it could accommodate.Mr. Ramalingam asked staff to further 175 evaluate the high water level on the western basin and surrounding area and height 176 differences. 177 Mr. Ramalingam noted that, once all the trees were removed as proposed, there would 178 be no longer any transpiration from the property, opining that 30-40% of the property’s 179 drainage today was handled by those mature trees, and questioned how that would 180 impact neighboring properties. 181 Member Murphy suggested the questions raised by Mr. Ramalingam would be most likely 182 addressed by the city’s engineering staff. 183 Member Bull noted thatengineered soils in the ponds should address that based on their 184 understanding. 185 Mr. Ramalingam opined that engineers were addressing low, not high water levels; and 186 groundwater was an unknown in the equation.However, Mr. Ramalingam further opined 187 that the grading plan indicated the basins would be higher than Mr. Cross’s property and 188 the water had to go somewhere and based on his calculations, it was currently going to 189 the Cross property. 190 Mr. Ramalingam further addressed the 32’ width of Acorn Road with no parking, while 191 this private street, while short will have parking on both sides; and sought a guarantee 192 that emergency vehicles would be able to access properties or turn around. 193 Janet Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road 194 In listening to tonight’s conversation, Ms. Romanowski noted there still appeared to be 195 problems with drainage, then homeowner’s association and tree removal, as well as the 196 private road and parking and emergency vehicle access.Ms. Romanowski suggested 197