Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 09 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 9, 2018 Page 5 of 12 Williams asked if the Public Works concerns were mainly drainage and if the drainage plan was designed based off the 100-year flood plan. Dean responded that drainage was part of the Public Works letter, but there were other issues as well. Zuccaro confirmed that it was based on the 100-year plan. Brauneis asked for other questions of staff. Seeing none, he invited the applicant to present. Gary Brothers, 1737 Lois Court in Lafayette, reminded the Commission that there had been changes in planning staff and city management since the application began. The current application presented no changes to roadways, the character of the buildings, or their sizes and locations. Brothers admitted that one of his oversights in agreeing to the setbacks was that on lot 6, there were zero lot lines. The setback requirement meant that those lot lines had to be extended five feet. He presented a list of seven conditions to the Commission to be considered for removal from the resolution. Hsu made motion to enter the applicant's list of seven conditions into the record. Hoefner seconded. Voice vote. Motion passed unanimously. Hsu and Brothers discussed the remaining steps in the application process. Hsu asked if the applicant would change the lot line from being in the ditch easement along with the waivers. Brothers replied yes. Hsu asked how long it would take to resolve the remaining conditions on the list. Brothers replied that a lot of them were small modifications. Hsu asked what would happen if it were delayed another month. Brothers stated that it would be frustrating, as the longer the process continues the more issues that come up. Hoefner asked for additional frustrations from the applicant. Brothers stated that frustration was not productive and that they wanted it to be a positive project. Hoefner asked if staff could address the applicant's seven points. Zuccaro reiterated that staff recommended approving the application. He addressed the applicant's seven conditions in sequence: (1) Keep this condition. There have been issues where the PUD and the subdivision do not match and that creates issues since all the documents are legal documents. It is standard practice to have that kind of measurement on one page within the PUD that shows that everything lines up. (2) Remove this condition. (3) Change this condition to add a note requesting a typical aisle and parking space, not that they dimension every spot. This is standard practice. (4) Change this condition to add a note on the plans to defer that issue. Zuccaro noted that it is standard to have an architectural elevation of the trash enclosures. (5) Change this condition to add a note on the plans to defer this issue.