Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 02 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2024 Page 7 of 8 Markel) said that they had consulted with an arborist to do a tree study of the site, and they had identified which trees were to be preserved. Many of the trees were invasive species. He added that the open space dedication was the subject of discussion with staff. Zuccaro said that the City typically did not seek a public land dedication for areas that had already been subdivided. Choi asked about the applicant's approach to the topography of the site, and how they planned to handle a storm water event. Joel Seamons, non-resident, was the applicant's civil engineer. He said that water was intended to flow into a detention pond in the southeast corner of the site, and said that it was designed to handle a 100 year historic flood. Choi asked what additional measures would be necessary to withstand a 100 year flood given the amount of impermeable surface. Seamons said that he was not exactly sure, but noted that many detention ponds were not filled during the 2013 100 year flood. Hunt asked about the market research the applicant had conducted for the very small units. Markel) said that they believed there was demand for non -deed restricted units like these, which would be more affordable due to their size rather than through artificial restrictions. Hunt asked whether the remaining homes would be marketed as luxury, high -end units, or if they would be targeted at the middle of the market. Markel) said that they were planning to market them as mid -range units. Staff Closing Statement: Post provided the staff closing statement. He said that staff would appreciate some further direction about what the Commission wanted to see from a new traffic study, and how they wanted staff to reshape the proposal. He noted that the proposal had gone through a very long period of staff review. He also went into depth about the relevant design guidelines. Commissioner Discussion: There was a discussion over the logistics of rehearing the proposal at a later date, and about possible changes to the road network near the site. Bangs said that though he would like to find a way to approve the application, he thought that the traffic issues needed further study. He added that he would have like to have seen more open space, but he recognized the reasoning used by staff against this. Choi said that he agreed with staff's reasoning for the rezoning, and felt that development on the site would be of great benefit to the City. However, he felt that the Front Street connection would not be necessary, and that it could be removed from the plan.