Planning Commission Minutes 2022 08 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 9 of 10 a GDP or GDP Amendment, it's just the plat to implement the 2010 GDP. Staff did not bring any of that forward as part of the discussion. Diehl asks if that means we cannot bring that forward at this time from the previous Redtail proposal. Zuccaro says there are design standards within the subdivision plat where the commission could deliberate whether or not these standards are in alignment with the plat. Section 16.12.075 talks about what the commission can add as conditions. From staff's point of view, it is clearer that use, height, area, or bulk requirements are plausible conditions the commission could put on this proposal. Krantz asks how we interpret the mandate that was given to the voters and the results from that. Zuccaro says the election was specific to an ordinance that dealt with a GDP proposal. This proposal is for a final plat and uses the 2010 ConocoPhillips GDP. That was a completely separate application. Kelly says it was a zoning action from City Council, which is considered legislative law. The application that is being deliberated tonight is on a subdivision plat, which is a completely different type of application. It is not a legislative matter. What happened during the election should have no bearing on this application and is not relevant to your decision tonight. Krantz asks if staff can differentiate between a preliminary and a final plat. Which parts are we reviewing that are preliminary and which parts are final? Zuccaro says what is being heard tonight is a preliminary and final plat, but they cover the same geographic area. The actual lots and blocks on both the preliminary and final are the same in this case. There are different submittal requirements but the approval criteria for consideration are the same. One example, for a preliminary plat, the applicant must provide a drainage plan but for a final plat, there is no requirement for an updated drainage plan. The applicant has decided to give all of this information together for the preliminary and final. Krantz brings up a concern of hers that the proposed drainage report says it is not good for the final. Zuccaro says once a plat is approved, we get construction documents and drainage reports that are reviewed by Public Works. Those final plans are adopted and then approved for construction. The submittal requirements for a preliminary plat include a drainage plan. He shows Section 16.12.050 and reads the code for the preliminary plat submittal requirements. The drainage plan will not be final until it is reviewed by Public Works. Diehl mentions five topics he would like to discuss at the next meeting. He wants to know more about the financial model, understand in greater detail the intersection of Highway 36 and Campus Drive, get better clarity on the open space, and have a discussion on sustainability and mineral rights. Moline asks for more information on how open space is credited. Zuccaro discusses the various ways open space can be credited, one of them being a net public land dedication. Krantz says in the transportation memo, there was a 12% non-SOV goal and this is not consistent with the traffic and mobility study that mentioned a 25% goal. She asks for clarification from staff or the applicant at the next meeting on the goals for those two plans. Howe asks for clarification on the traffic shown on Table 2 such as the increase in traffic patterns and intersection distances.