2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 5 City Code, resulting in a total removal and replacement of 87 trees of minimum caliper or 200 fewer depending on their actual size. 201 As indicated previously by the Parks & Recreation Commission with past proposals in 202 recent years, they stand by their recommendation to require cash in lieu of land for the 203 three additional lots created as part of this subdivision proposal. 204 Mr. Lloyd noted that in the Public Works/Engineering Department’s review of the proposal 205 specific to the road and drainage plans, they had determined that the drainage plan met 206 applicable requirements for approval by the watershed district.However, Mr. Lloyd noted 207 that they had observed that having that many ponds would require maintenance and 208 need creation of an association to properly address and fund that maintenance long-term, 209 in addition to future maintenance of the private road. 210 Prior to tonight’s meeting and as noted in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted one e-mail in 211 opposition to this proposal, and staff’s receipt of one phone call supporting the proposal if 212 it met all standard requirements as applicable.Mr. Lloyd noted the receipt of one 213 additional written public comment – in opposition - received since dissemination of the 214 agenda packet provided as bench handouts and made available to the public and for 215 incorporation with the information going forward to the City Council with the Planning 216 Commission’s recommendation. 217 Mr. Lloyd advised that based on their review of City Code requirements, they 218 recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as conditioned and detailed in the RPCA. 219 Commissioner Questions of Staff 220 For the benefit of the public, new commissioners, and his own edification, Chair 221 Boguszewski reviewed the historical context of previous applications before the Planning 222 Commission and City Council, and ultimate approval of the 2014 Preliminary Plat by the 223 Planning Commission and their determination that technical requirements had been met 224 in that application and the subdivision would not prove detrimental to adjacent properties 225 with staff recommending approval based on that analysis as well.However, Chair 226 Boguszewski noted that subsequently, the City Council had expressed less confidence in 227 that drainage plan, in addition to the road and other components. 228 Mr. Lloyd agreed with Chair Boguszewski’s synopsis, and that drainage was the main 229 concern of the City Council, in addition to removal of existing trees from the site. 230 Upon denial by the City Council in 2014, Chair Boguszewski further noted that additional 231 directions to Mr. Mueller were drafted, prompting this revised proposal before the 232 Commission, and appearing to meet those additional directions of the City Council. 233 Mr. Lloyd revised Chair Boguszewski’s synopsis, noting the items listed in the staff report, 234 lines 110-132, that staff had compiled from the City Council’s meeting discussion and 235 direction to Mr. Mueller, each identified by bullet point, with some met with the current 236 Preliminary Plat, with others pending as this plat attempted to address, but he would not 237 state categorically that each had been completely addressed from staff’s perspective or 238 interpretation at this time. 239 Noting his attendance at the most recent Open House held by Mr. Mueller, Chair 240 Boguszewski asked Public Works Director/City Engineer Culver to talk more about how 241 this latest proposal addresses stormwater, and whether it provides a better, more 242 controlled ormore conservative solution, and how it addresses past concerns. 243 Mr. Culver advised that he would say that the current proposal is different than previous 244 proposals from the perspective of stormwater management, but stated he was not sure it 245 differed dramatically so from the perspective of where water is going on site and where it 246 would ultimately flow when overflowing.Mr. Culver opined that there may have been 247 more overflow onto Acorn Road in previous proposals, but larger basins on that side 248 created issues with setbacks on two lots in that immediate vicinity.Mr. Culver advised 249 that Engineering staff reviewed the hydraulic report from the applicant’s engineer, and for 250