2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 7 had fallen out of the market.Mr. Boryczkaconcluded that this was the storyfrom his 300 perspective. 301 Mr. Boryczkaopined that his main concern was with the water, and whether it should 302 drain to the northwest with no retention to avoid draining onto someone else’s land, to the 303 south to the middle, with nothing changed, including the grades; with one future house 304 actually shown in the ditch. 305 Paul Romanowski,2195 Acorn Road 306 For the record, Mr. Romanowski submitted a formal petition to the Planning Commission, 307 attached hereto and made a part hereof,and entitled, “Petition of neighbors opposed 308 to the development of 2201 Acorn Road.”Mr. Romanowski advised that, upon request by 309 neighbors on Acorn Road and the surrounding area to put together a petition, he had 310 done so, and in making his calls had found no one on Acorn Road in support of the 311 project, but all against it, as well as in the surrounding area. 312 Mr. Romanowski opined that this development would not increase the value of homes in 313 the neighborhood, and if their property value were going to be lowered, then their taxes 314 should be lowered accordingly.Mr. Romanowski noted that the street currently looks like 315 a park, and people from within and outside the neighborhood walk it by the dozens with 316 their dogs and to appreciate the view.Mr. Romanowski opinedthat everyone likes the 317 area and its beauty, and to him, if Mr. Mueller’s project got going, it would be like building 318 a house in the middle of a park; and further opined that the majority of people felt the 319 same way. 320 Joel Cheney, 2172Acorn Road 321 Mr. Cheney opined that he got all the traffic from Acorn Road, and there was already 322 sufficient traffic for the street width, without adding three more homes and that 323 proportional amount of traffic.While not clear on the regulations and standards with this 324 situation, Mr. Cheney concurred with the park-like atmosphere of the street and walkers 325 with children and/or pets from other neighborhoods using it as well.However, Mr. Cheney 326 noted that this also required some ducking and dodging of those pedestrians as cars 327 come around the corner off County Road B, often making it hazardous, especially at the 328 end of his driveway.If a substandard street and cul-de-sac were brought into the picture, 329 Mr. Cheney opined that it would only exacerbate the situation. 330 Mr. Cheney also concurred that water was a big issue in this neighborhood, and 331 questioned if the City Engineer had taken into consideration the water flow and additional 332 impervious surfaces (e.g. driveways, roofs, and garages) proposed for the development, 333 and changes it would make in runoff and potential direction.Mr. Cheney questioned if 334 that was taken into consideration when engineering the ponds.Regarding the ponds 335 themselves, Mr. Cheney advised that he’d tried to control water with ponds, and most of it 336 ended up in his basement.If they were intended to address 7 inches of rain in 24-hours, 337 Mr. Cheney opined that they would need to be 8’-10’ deep to hold water, and further 338 opined that he couldn’t fathom that those things had been factored in to accommodate a 339 sufficient volume of water.As an example, Mr. Cheney stated that he’d installed a rain 340 garden and after eight years, it no longer existed as it was filled with vegetation; and if the 341 proposed pond volume was also impacted like that, he questioned if adequate today, 342 would it remain adequate four years from now after significant leaf and acorn drops.If the 343 ponds were to remain viable over time, Mr. Cheney questioned who would be responsible 344 for their oversight when located on private property; when the whole drainage picture 345 could change radically in 5-6 years if the ponds were seen as the solution versus 346 drainage by water channel to another location. 347 Mr. Cheney sought assurance that these things were being taken into consideration by 348 the Planning Commission. 349 At the request of Chair Gisselquist,City Engineer Culver responded to the public’s 350 questions. 351