My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2018 03 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2018 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2018 03 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:27:28 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:56:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
3/8/2018
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 8, 2018 <br />Page 3 of 14 <br />The proposal includes a plan to obtain a license from the City for the development of City property. The <br />applicant is proposing to improve the property with landscaping and a trail. They are also proposing to put <br />their detention pond on the property, but they would build a Regional Detention for a Larger Basin than <br />what currently exists for surrounding communities to use, as well. Open Space and the Parks Board are <br />in support of this element of the proposal. The idea is to provide a public benefit in exchange for the <br />license. <br />Zuccaro stated that rather than having a public park on their property, they are proposing a 15% cash -in - <br />lieu, which has also been approved by Parks and Open Space. The applicant is dedicating land to the <br />City to complete East Street improvements, including a public sidewalk along East Street. A sewer <br />easement will be vacated to relocate two sewer lines, which City Council will be reviewing concurrent with <br />this request. <br />Zuccaro stated that the applicant submitted a traffic analysis that indicated how many AM- and PM -peak <br />trips would be expected on a weekday. Based on this information, there are no new lane improvements <br />recommended. The school district calculated that there would be about 9 additional students in the feeder <br />schools from this development, and that number could be accommodated. The Fire Department had no <br />objections. Public Works has a few cleanup and minor comments left. Public Works wants a Final <br />Drainage Report approved before the City Council hearing, but the preliminary review has already been <br />approved by Public Works. The one condition for approval from staff is that the applicant complies with all <br />outstanding comments on Public Works. <br />Staff recommends conditional approval, finding that the proposal complies with the Final PUD and <br />Subdivision Plat requirements of the Municipal Code and recommends approval with the following <br />condition: <br />1. Prior to the City Council Hearing, the applicant shall address all comments in the February 22, <br />2018 Public Works comment letter. <br />Brauneis asked for conflict of interest from the Commission. <br />Howe read the following statement: "I would like to disclose that I am a local business owner in the <br />community, in which I assist many clients. A member of the applicant team is one of my clients, however I <br />have no interest in or financial connection to this project or application. Our relationship will have no effect <br />on my judgement within the scope of this Planning Commission." <br />Brauneis asked for comments of staff. <br />Zuccaro asked that the new resolution with the updated dates be entered into the record. He added that <br />the new resolution was on the public board, as well. <br />Brauneis asked for a motion to include the new resolution with the dates changed from February to March <br />into the record. Howe made a motion to approve, Williams seconded. Voice vote. Motion passed <br />unanimously. <br />Brauneis asked for questions of staff. <br />Rice asked where residents would park. <br />Zuccaro stated that area A had front -loading garages and B and C had alley -loading garages. The <br />proposed parking met the minimum zoning requirement, which is to have two off-street spaces per unit. <br />There was also community parking nearby. <br />Rice asked where visitors would park. <br />Zuccaro stated that they would have to park internal to the subdivision. Part of East Street was required <br />to have no parking. <br />Rice asked why the high and low fiscal analysis came out in negatives <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.