2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 3 Mr. Lloyd noted that staff’s analysis of this portion of the application was also detailed in 95 the staff report and attachments dated March 2, 2016. 96 Mr. Lloyd noted that vacation of the existing right-of-way would occur at the City Council 97 level and serve to erase and replace it with an undulating right-of-way and curvilinear 98 roadway intended as an engineered traffic calming effect. 99 Mr. Lloyd displayed several maps as part of his presentation, including lot lines and street 100 alignment in accordance with City Code. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff supports the 101 proposal as presented and a broader interpretation of straight east/west lot lines and 102 alignment of Wheaton Avenue further west and side property lines north/south versus 103 applying them as proscribed as a radial or perpendicular location to the street. Mr. Lloyd 104 noted that the City Zoning Code specified lot size standards for LDR-2 for each parcel 105 and noted that all proposed parcels meet or exceed those standards and are located 106 perpendicular to Dale Street. 107 Mr. Lloyd noted that at the time the staff report was written, the Parks & Recreation 108 Commission had not yet made a determination for park dedication of land or cash-in-lieu- 109 of; and advised that it would be available at the City Council meeting. Mr. Lloyd did note 110 that at their Commission meeting last night, they had confirmed that a cash-in-lieu-of 111 dedication would be appropriate, and that recommendation would be passed along to the 112 City Council accordingly. 113 Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicant had submitted a tree preservation and thorough tree 114 inventory of the site as part of their documentation. In relationship to the realignment of 115 the street and stormwater drainage plans, Mr. Lloyd noted that, while the final iteration 116 may change during the process, the City’s Arborist had reviewed the plans and deemed 117 them accurate as presented, resulting in a deficit from removal and replacement of 118 twenty-three new trees across the site if development is completed as proposed. 119 Mr. Lloyd further advised that the City Engineer would continue reviewing plans 120 submitted by the developer for grading, utilities, street details and stormwater 121 management throughout the process, and therefore had not been included in staff’s 122 report at this time. 123 Following preparation of the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted several emails provided to the 124 Commission, and one additional follow-up email distributed tonight as a bench handout, 125 attached hereto and made a part hereof. 126 In conclusion, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff’s analysis supported recommending Rezoning 127 and approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to those changes identified in the staff 128 report, lines 266 – 281. 129 Chair Boguszewski started discussion and questions of staff by clarifying the application, 130 community engagement and content for this two-pronged request requiring two separate 131 actions. 132 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the Commission would be reviewing the rezoning request tonight, 133 they would make their recommendation to the City Council to approve or deny with the 134 City Council being the final decision-maker. If the Commission chose to not support the 135 rezoning request, Mr. Lloyd suggested they recommend denying the request rather than 136 tabling the request; asking the applicant to revise their plans so rezoning would not be 137 necessary and bring that revised plan back to the Commission and a new public hearing. 138 Mr. Lloyd noted that if the Commission denied the request it would probably proceed to 139 the City Council for their final adjudication and action before a revised request came back 140 before the Commission. 141 Chair Boguszewski referenced the email dated February 26, 2016 (bench handout) from 142 Dawn Loven, 686 W County Road C, related to the public notification process and asked 143 Mr. Lloyd to review once again what triggered the window of time for an applicant to 144 schedule the open house, what governs that and what occurs first. 145