CCP 07102023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

43 Storm Water Management 44 The grading and storm water management plan illustrated in Attachment 3 addresses the proposed 45 development on the lots as required. The City Engineer has noted the plans can be made to meet the 46 City's requirements and, since the storm water BMPs are to be private, a public improvement contract 47 will be necessary to ensure their proper ongoing maintenance. 48 Tree Preservation 49 The tree preservation and replacement plan requirements in City Code §1011.04 provide a way to 50 quantify the amount of tree material being removed for a given project and to calculate the potential tree 51 replacement obligation. A few trees were removed as part of grading done last fall (to fill the hole left 52 from demolition of the previous structure several years ago), and the preliminary calculation of a 53 replacement obligation based on these removals and the proposed development illustrated in Attachment 54 3 would not elicit replacement trees. 55 Public Comment 56 Plat applications creating four or more lots require the developer to hold an “open house meeting” to 57 engage nearby community members, answer their questions, and address their concerns. While the 58 applicant’s scheduled in-person meeting was delayed because of a snow storm, they did still hold a 59 meeting and made themselves available for people to engage with them by email and by phone over 60 several days. People’s concerns appear to be largely centered on issues of traffic and on-street parking. 61 In response to these concerns, City policy does not require a traffic study for the proposed plat and 62 minimum parking requirements established under the Zoning Code do not trigger designated off-street 63 parking spaces beyond what an attached garage and driveway provide. A summary of the engagement is 64 a required component of this plat application, and it is included with this RPCA as Attachment 5. 65 A public hearing for the preliminary plat proposal was held by the Planning Commission on June 7, 66 2023. The one person who spoke was generally supportive of the proposal, but echoed the parking 67 concerns raised by others. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the request 68 consistent with the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner McGehee opposed the request, 69 citing concerns with the proposal’s proximity to Rosebrook Park, existing parking issues at the park and 70 a feeling the proposed development would add to traffic concerns in the area, and her preference that the 71 subject property be purchased for parkland. Draft minutes of the public hearing are included as part of 72 Attachment 5. 73 P OLICY O BJECTIVES 74 75 and retains a diverse mix of people, family types, economic statuses, ages, and so on. 76 77 78 demographics of the City), and opportunities to address the lack of housing in the “missing 79 middle” styles. 80 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 81 Acquisition of park dedication funds. Refer to DRC comments in Attachment 4. 82 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 83 Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Danny Boy Estates preliminary plat based on the 84 content of this RCA, public input, the recommendation and findings of the Planning Commission, and 85 City Council deliberation, with the following conditions. 7b RCA Page 3 of 4