2014_06_04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 2 apply conditions to ensure that the likely impacts to roads, storm sewers and public 44 infrastructure on and around the subject property are adequately addressed. As noted in 45 the conditions recommended in Section 7 of the staff report, the applicant will continue to 46 work with the City’s Public Works/Engineering Department to address stormwater and 47 infrastructure requirements as the projects goes through the permitting process. 48 Mr. Lloyd also briefly reviewed Section 5.4 of the staff report related to City Code Section 49 1011.04 (tree preservation), advising that a tree survey had been provided, but was still 50 under review by staff and final approval was also a conditional as part of the final plat. 51 Mr. Lloyd advised that, since the staff report distributed, staff had received one e-mail in 52 support of the proposal which is provided for the public in the back of the room, attached 53 hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Lloyd further noted that he had received a phone 54 call earlier today from a neighboring property concerned with the potential negative 55 impact of the subdivision being approved, and introduction of another road that could 56 erode property values nearby and negative impact and exacerbate the existing drainage 57 problems in the area due to additional impervious surfaces (e.g. roads, rooftops). 58 Relative to drainage and stormwater concerns, Mr. Lloyd noted that current regulations of 59 the City and Watershed District require a stormwater plan that addresses those 60 requirements; and the development would not be allowed to increase existing drainage 61 problems; but it would neither be required to solve the area drainage problems other than 62 what did or did not leave the subject site, or in other words a neutral effect. 63 Stormwater plan addresses requirements without technical training – offer that 64 development not allowed to make drainage problems worse – not solve regional 65 stormwater problems, but leaving site same as site before development - neutral 66 Mr. Lloyd advised that, after staff’s analysis, they recommended approval of the request, 67 as conditioned. 68 Discussion 69 Member Boguszewski questioned why the plat approved in 2007 had not been filed, 70 since it was the same applicant and essentially the same preliminary plat. 71 Other than to explain that staff was aware of a lawsuit having been brought against the 72 project of applicant following that approval that took time to resolve, after which the 73 residential housing market dropped significantly and may have been an additional factor 74 in impacting development, Mr. Lloyd deferred to the applicant to respond to that when he 75 was recognized by the Chair. 76 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd briefly reviewed park dedication 77 requirements and/or cash-in-lieu of land, as detailed in Section 5.5 of the staff report, in 78 accordance with subdivision code requirements. Mr. Lloyd advised that typically, new 79 building sites created in excess of one acre anticipated impacts to nearby parks, 80 triggering a park dedication fee/land process built into code to acquire additional land 81 from a new development for park land as appropriate. In this case, Mr. Lloyd noted that 82 the Parks & Recreation Commission recommended cash in lieu of land for dedication to 83 make additional capital improvements to nearby parks. Mr. Lloyd clarified that this action 84 was recommended to the City Council in their role, and would become part of the City 85 Council’s resolution of approval of a final plan when the project proceeded to that step. 86 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke and Mr. Lloyd advised that, at the 87 development’s tree preservation plan would be reviewed as the process proceeded 88 based on current code. 89 Member Daire asked the proposed price point of the new homes in this subdivision, 90 which Mr. Lloyd deferred to the applicant when called upon later by Chair Gisselquist. 91 Member Daire stated that the purpose of his question was to determine if the properties 92 and structures would be similar to the average estimated market value of surrounding 93