Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, December 2, 2015 <br />Page 6 <br />to have addressed those concerns and improved upon them.Therefore, Member <br />248 <br />Cunningham stated she would be hard pressed not to support this request. <br />249 <br />MOTION <br />250 <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by MemberCunningham torecommend to the <br />251 <br />City Council approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property at 2201 <br />252 <br />Road; as detailed and based on theinformationandanalysis, and as conditioned <br />253 <br />and outlinedin the project report dated December 2, 2015; <br />amended to emphasize <br />254 <br />Condition D as follows: <br />255 <br />“The applicant shall create and maintain a homeowner’s association for the long- <br />256 <br />term maintenance of the private infrastructure.All documents shall be reviewed <br />257 <br />and approved by the City Attorney, Public Works Department, and Community <br />258 <br />Development Department. <br />259 <br />Member Stellmach stated he found this latest proposal much improved from the last <br />260 <br />iteration; and personally found three parcels and single-family homes a better fit for the <br />261 <br />neighborhood.Member Stellmach expressed appreciation to Mr. Mueller for the <br />262 <br />additional drainage improvements and trees remaining along Acorn Road. <br />263 <br />Based on previous discussion earlier tonight, Member Bull clarified that based on his <br />264 <br />understanding the emergency vehicle access concern had been brought up by the City <br />265 <br />Councilas to stacking of vehicles on the private road as with the situation on any cul-de- <br />266 <br />sac.However, Member Bull noted that the Police and Fire Departments, in their review, <br />267 <br />had expressed no concern with that emergency vehicle access.Specific to tree <br />268 <br />preservation, Member Bull noted that the previous plan required 87 replacement trees, <br />269 <br />while this plan required zero replacements.Member Bull further noted that this plan <br />270 <br />provided 4,000 square feet less of impervious surface area allowing for better drainage. <br />271 <br />Therefore, Member Bull opined there were a lot of positives with this proposal compared <br />272 <br />to those in the past.Member Bull stated that his one remaining concern was with the <br />273 <br />potential responsibility the city may incur to maintain the basin in the southwest corner, <br />274 <br />noting that it also bisected two different property lines.Member Bull asked how those <br />275 <br />costs would be allocated when two different property owners were involved or how the <br />276 <br />city would access the properties if required to provide that maintenance. <br />277 <br />City Planner Paschke advised that all property owners wouldbe assessed equally as <br />278 <br />they shared similar burdens; and if the site had any drainage issues, all three sites would <br />279 <br />share equally in the resolution and associated costs. <br />280 <br />Regarding previous City Council comments, Member Bull stated that he shared their <br />281 <br />concerns about the homeowner’s association, and as noted in lines 113 and 121 of the <br />282 <br />staff report, he was unclear on the term “long-term” maintenance, suggesting it needed to <br />283 <br />be “permanent” and “ongoing” by the association.Therefore, Member Bull suggested <br />284 <br />changing that terminology in the Commission’smotion and conditions.With that <br />285 <br />amendment, Member Bull stated his support for that amended motion of approval. <br />286 <br />Member Gitzen echoed the comments made by hiscolleagues, stating he found this <br />287 <br />iteration a vast improvement from the last one in lessening existing runoff as well as any <br />288 <br />new drainage.Member Gitzen spoke in support of the motion. <br />289 <br />Chair Boguszewski also agreed with his colleagues, and suggested revised terminology <br />290 <br />for Condition D to the makers of the motion, which they agreed with. <br />291 <br />MOTION RESTATED AS REVISED <br />292 <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by MemberCunningham torecommend to the <br />293 <br />City Council approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property at 2201 <br />294 <br />Road; as detailed and based on the information and analysis, and as conditioned <br />295 <br />and outlined in the project report dated December 2, 2015; <br />amended to emphasize <br />296 <br />Condition D as follows: <br />297 <br />“The applicant shall create and maintain a homeowner’s association for the \[long- <br />298 <br />term\] \[permanent and ongoing\]maintenance of the private infrastructure.All <br />299 <br /> <br />