Laserfiche WebLink
� 2. Birch Park will be responsible for a park dedication requirement. Staff assumes that a <br />� payment in lieu of land dedication will be required amounting to $1,000 per net new lot. <br />� The method of park dedication (land or fee) must be reviewed by the Park & Recreation <br />� Commission and a recommendation included in the final action by the City Council. <br />� <br />� Member Bake�nan asked what the name of the cul-de-sac should be. Could the street be named <br />� something different (Chatsworth Circle or Court)? This meets the street naming requirements. <br />� <br />� �� Chair �"zaynor asked why this is not a PUD or zoning criteria in larger developments. What is <br />i i the scope of review for single fami�y iots? Thomas Paschke explained the process used on Iona <br />1� Lane for a PUD. Thomas Paschke also explained the need to determine zoning consistency and <br />.l � meeting all the criteria within the subdivision plat. "Does the plat meet these criteria" is �he <br />1� question the Planning Commission must answer. He explained that these lots meet the minimum <br />�� legal requirements of the code (lot size, consistent with comprehensive plan, sewer, grading, <br />l b drainage, watershed review). Member Pust asked if this could be a PUD. (Had this been done at <br />1� the Iona Lane subdivision?) Oalccrest and �at��x�e subdivision is similar to this proposal. <br />l� <br />�� <br />2U <br />�] <br />�� <br />�� <br />��' ' i <br />•• �ia�i <br />?� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />31 <br />�� <br />33 <br />3� <br />35 <br />�� <br />�7 <br />�� <br />3� <br />�U <br />�1 <br />r� '� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�5 <br />�� <br />Ron Anderson, applicant, explained that this proposal will be for single family homes. Chair <br />"�S"raynar asked who wilt pay for utilities, roads and dedication. (This is the applicants <br />responsibility.) <br />Three pieces of correspondence opposed to the project were added to the record. Deborah Pile <br />(drainage) Dahmatu�/Sabeno (wildlife natural environrr�er.t and n�:va��} and Saxerud (privacy, <br />quality of life). <br />Bill Kuhbander, 1016 Parker, owns land to the west and said the property will change the <br />neighborhood. Three homes are owned by the Baptist Church. Traffic is an issue. This <br />develapmenf will add 10 new cars and there will be little parking. There were deer, weasels, fox <br />and ducks in the backyard. Why wasn't a traffic study done? Thomas Paschke explained the <br />traffic in the neighborhood. Chair "�`raynor expressed concern about the changes to the character <br />of the neighborhood (single family lot neighborhood). <br />Member White asked what are the options if this is denied? What are the changes that could <br />occur in the future? Chair Traynor noted that the Planning Commissionwould have to create <br />"findings" to support why to deny the pu�pose. Member White asked if the character of the <br />neighborhood could be the basis for denial. (No —not a requirement of the code) <br />Member poherty asked for clarification regarding tree preservation. The City does not have a <br />tree preservation code to prevent tree removal. <br />1�ir. Kuhbander asked if he could subdivide his property similarly. This subdivision will destroy <br />the neighborhood. <br />Terry Foster, 969 Parker Avenue, said cars entering or leaving will have lights shining in his <br />windows. He said he was in favor of �he project. Mr. Anderson could propose a PUD with more <br />� �� 4� <br />