2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a. Request for Approval of a Preliminary Plat of an Existing Parcel into Six Lots in 1 Order to Build a Twinhome Development (PF20-026) 2 Chair Gitzen opened the public hearing for PF20-026 at approximately 6:42 p.m. and 3 reported on the purpose and process of a public hearing. He advised this item will be 4 before the City Council on February 22, 2021. 5 6 Senior Planner Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated 7 February 3, 2021. 8 9 Member Pribyl as for clarification on the replacement trees because in the report it 10 shows preliminarily that the trees are not required under the Ordinance but in Mr. 11 Lloyd’s presentation it sounded like the Forester confirmed that replacement trees are 12 required. 13 14 Mr. Lloyd explained he and the Forester have been talking about this project as well 15 as the other projects tonight over emails the last few weeks. The trees or table that is 16 a part of the tree preservation plan document that the Commissioners are reviewing 17 tonight is one that he pasted over the one already there. There were some numerical 18 errors in the table that were on that plan. The staff report did indicate that 19 replacement trees would not be necessary but that is incorrect. 20 21 Member McGehee indicated she was not aware of the fine details but assumed the 22 single-family home will remain, but she learned from the resident that apparently the 23 owner of the lot being developed, and the single-family home were owned by the 24 same individual. When that person sold the home to the current owners on the west 25 side of that site it was indicated the property line was different than what it is. Those 26 people had been maintaining at least a strip of the property by their house. Since it 27 was purchased a chain link fence was put up during COVID and with the chain link 28 fence up there is not enough room next to their garage and she was sure that those 29 owners need a buffer but there have been other places like this where the City has 30 actually devised something up and made adjustments. She did not believe this was 31 one of those cases, but she did think that given the proximity of that house, which is 32 occupied as a single-family house, there needs to be some sort of buffer or 33 accommodation between the developer and the other homeowner or the City put some 34 additional buffering there but not a fence because that makes a problem for the 35 current owners to navigate around their home. She asked staff for suggestions for 36 this. 37 38 Mr. Lloyd indicated he was not sure there was a good answer. Whether the shared 39 driveway is 110 feet to the east of where it is proposed to conform to that nominal 40 provision about the street and the recently adopted underlying problem that the 41 property line is closer than the homeowners anticipated it to be, moving the street or 42 not installing a fence does not give anymore room to that neighboring homeowner 43 and short of deeding some land or providing an easement across there, he did not 44 know what other solutions there might be and he did not think that any of those are in 45 the City’s purview. 46 47 Member Schaffhausen indicated because of the issues that came up with the new road 48 she asked Mr. Lloyd to explain if someone could come in a back way and try and do 49 RCA Attachment E Page 1 of 28