2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 11 As far as traffic flow, Member Boguszewski noted that this had also been addressed 508 tonight; and the proposed road construction met standards in place. 509 Requiring the developer to post a bond to assure neighbors of completion of the project, 510 Member Boguszewski opined that completion of the infrastructure, as part of the 511 proposal, was already assured. 512 Therefore, Member Boguszewski opined that all issues listed in the petition had been 513 addressed from his perspective and to his satisfaction; and other items the Commission 514 did not have any control over as already pointed out by Chair Gisselquist.Member 515 Boguszewski opined that it wasthe right of any property owner, within the law and code 516 standards in place, to develop their property; and therefore, he advised that he would 517 support the motion. 518 Member Murphy concurred with the two previous speakers.As a Planning 519 Commissioner, Member Murphy opined that the applicant was not requesting any 520 variances to develop this property as proposed; and therefore was meeting all 521 appropriate city codes in place.While initially having some traffic concerns, Member 522 Murphy opined that he didn’t believethree additional homes, which he found minimal, 523 would have any great impact on current traffic patterns and volumes, especially with the 524 closure of 280 at County Road B, which had caused a significant decrease in traffic in 525 this area already.Since he found the traffic from these three additional homes not to be 526 significant from his perspective, or create additional burdens in thearea, Member Murphy 527 spoke in favor of the proposal. 528 Member Stellmach expressed appreciation for the public comments, noted thathe 529 understood their concerns, and sympathized with the issues they’d raised. Member 530 Stellmach stated that from his perspective, a preliminary plat came down to whether or 531 not the proposed development was compliance with City Code, and opined that staff had 532 shown that it was; and noted the amount of time and effort expended to ensure drainage 533 was adequate and would not exacerbate existing drainage problems, with changes made 534 to improve the drainage even more since originally approved in 2007.Member Stellmach 535 spoke in support of the proposal. 536 Member Cunningham expressed her appreciation for the public comment as well and 537 concerns expressed.However, Member Cunningham opined that the Commission’s 538 hands were tied based on their jurisdiction in plat review and approval versus home 539 values and current neighborhood standards.Member Cunningham advised that she 540 would support the motion; and expressed her respect for staff and their expertise in 541 addressing tree preservation and drainage issues in accordance with code.Member 542 Cunningham encouraged the public to continue bringing their concerns to the City 543 Council; but advisedthat she would be voting in favor of the proposal. 544 Member Daire , in his review of the plat provided to the Commission by City Planners, 545 advised that he immediately noticedto the north of 2201, lot 2225 on the petition that 546 belongs to James Killum and asked if he was present, which he was not.Visually, 547 Member Daire noted that it appears that his lot size was the same as 2201, and looking 548 at his proposed lot in the petition, he would hold that question accordingly; and offered no 549 further comment at this time. 550 Ayes: 6 551 Nays: 0 552 Motion carried. 553 This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council at their June 23, 2014 meeting. 554 Mr. Paschke cautioned that the scheduling was tentative, based on other agenda items 555 on the docket; and suggested they contact City Hall or check the City’s website the 556 Friday before the scheduled meeting to confirm if it’s on the docket. 557