Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 11, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />Ritchie replied that with the GDP the property owners agreed in 2004 that they would <br />provide coordinated development. Staff did not interpret that to mean simultaneous <br />development. In addition to the application, there was a phasing plan that outlined who <br />was going to build what infrastructure, and there would also be requirements within that <br />agreement that the property owners have covenants and HOAs or some type of <br />coordinating structure. Staff believed that the peripheral agreements met the <br />coordinated development requirement. <br />Diehl stated that he understood the HOA process and asked if staff saw the <br />developments happening in a coordinated fashion. <br />Ritchie replied that staff evaluated if the application facilitated access in a logical <br />manner, which staff thought this proposal did. Staff also determined that it met the GDP <br />access intent. She stated that there would be a required Public Works final design <br />review to address access and utility issues, as well. Ritchie noted that outlots A and B <br />provided the trail connection. <br />Diehl asked about the cash -in -lieu and if that decision had been up to the property <br />owners. <br />Ritchie replied that Parks and Open Space had evaluated whether the City wanted land <br />dedication or fee -in -lieu. <br />Diehl asked where the decision came from. <br />Ritchie replied that the original GDP dedicated those outlots for the trail and that had <br />been a long-term goal for the City. She added that the City was not interested in <br />additional land. <br />Williams asked about the timeline of the City trail connection. <br />Ritchie replied that it was not on the current Capital Improvement Plant (CIP) for the <br />next five years. The connection required additional City funds to connect to the Coal <br />Creek trail and the ConocoPhillips property also needed to be figured out in tandem. <br />The CIP was reevaluated every two years. <br />Zuccaro added that the connection was discussed in the Transportation Master Plan <br />(TMP) but not in the current six -year CIP. <br />Moline asked about staff's recommended condition. <br />Ritchie replied that staff was requesting material and architectural changes. <br />Moline asked how the subdivision agreement fit into the project timeline. <br />Ritchie replied that a draft form of the agreement would go to Council. Staff's policy was <br />that non -substantive items could change, giving the example of cost estimates. But the <br />substantive core of the agreement was adopted by Council and could not be changed <br />