2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 5 for street widths, and Section 1103.021 for the range of alternatives.Mr. Lloyd advised 196 that the actual construction plan provided for a 40’ radius for the turnaround area, which 197 was below standard, but supported by the Public Works Director and previously by the 198 City Council in their approval in 2007. 199 At the request of Mr. LeTendre, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that this would be a public street, 200 with the City responsible for its future maintenance 201 Mr. LeTendre also asked the price point for theseproposed lots, as requested previously 202 by Member Daire. 203 Member Daire clarified that he had sought information on the price point of the proposed 204 structures, not the land itself; opining that the land undergirding the structure may be the 205 same as that of surrounding properties; and that the difference may occur in actual sale 206 price of the proposed new residential structures as opposed to the existing structures. 207 Mr. LeTendre stated that he was interested in that information as well.Mr. LeTendre also 208 noted ponds # 6 and 4.b show that they would overflow onto neighboring properties; and 209 questioned if the Commission had addressed that or not with the City Council; however, 210 he opined that such a design or circumstance would not be upheld in court.If the 211 Commission approved this proposal, Mr. LeTendre asked that they make it a contingency 212 that no water from the development’s ponding overflowsonto neighboring properties. 213 Mr. Paschke advised Chair Gisselquist that the City Engineer could comment on the 214 preliminary plan at the discretion of the Chair. 215 Member Boguszewski suggested staff comments and/or responses be held until after 216 citizen comment was heard. 217 Mr. LeTendre further notedseveral areas shown on the plat “restraining walls by others” 218 and wondered what that meant, whether the developers would still pay for them, or what 219 the intent was. 220 Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant could respond to that question; but assumed it 221 was a by-product of the lot itself and development of final home designs, typically a 222 responsibility of the builder to install them consistent with the plan, and approved by the 223 City. 224 Mr. LeTendre noted the notation “alternative driveway by developer,” but noted that none 225 was actually shown, and questioned that intent. 226 Member Daire noted that the alternative driveway shown on the plat cut south across the 227 retention pond area. 228 Recognizing that, Mr. LeTendre asked how the Planning Commission would address 229 that, and if the developer uses the pond, would the alternative go away. 230 Mr. Paschke clarified that it was actually the other way around; the pond was the 231 controlling mechanism as to where the house would/could be located, and would need to 232 be designed for a driveway further to the north, and not across the pond. 233 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, City Engineer and Assistant Public Works Director 234 Marc Culver responded to questions of the public and Commission. 235 Marc Culver 236 In respect to the question related to overflow of two infiltration basins on the west side of 237 the property, Mr. Culver noted that it did show potential overflows onto adjacent parcels. 238 While unable to address what would be held up in court, from his standpoint, Mr. Culver 239 advised that overflow basins were designed to withhold water for certain 100 year rainfall 240 events –7 inches over a 24-hour period, in excess of that, they would overflow into 241 existing drainage patterns existing today.Mr. Culver advised that staff contends that the 242 plan shown provides a reduction in overall drainage to the area, in essence capturing 243 more stormwater than today; and as indicated by Mr. Lloyd, improved previous 244 requirements slightly. 245