Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 13, 2022 <br />Page 3 of 13 <br />Brauneis asks if Krantz would ever find it appropriate to have a preliminary and a <br />final plat be submitted at the same time. <br />Krantz says she does think that can be submitted at one time. <br />Zuccaro asks if Krantz can say what all the modifications were because he is <br />only aware of one modification, which is about the block length requirement. <br />Krantz reads the second modification request. It mentions the following: A final <br />plat for a portion of the overlay property prior to an approval of the preliminary <br />plat for the property. The applicant understands that the approval of the final plat <br />is dependent upon the preliminary plat. <br />City Attorney Kelly says that she and staff have reviewed this matter and a <br />modification request was not required regardless of how the applicant stated that <br />in their application letter. <br />Moline agrees with the city attorney and favors not including this in the <br />resolution. <br />Krantz agrees with the city attorney as well. <br />Zuccaro says if there is a tie vote, staff would ask that the application is <br />continued. <br />Krantz mentions the condition of this application not complying with LMC <br />16.04.020, section K and he also mentioned it does not comply with section B. <br />she would like to revise that resolution to only include section K but B as well. <br />Brauneis says because these are planned streets, how does it not find proper <br />arrangement of streets in relation to the existing plan? <br />Krantz says she was concerned about the location of Campus Drive and it being <br />only a 740-foot difference between the two intersections. <br />Brauneis says that every traffic engineer that has looked at it has said that it is <br />the best location. <br />Osterman says she does not feel strongly about adding section B. <br />Krantz says she is finding dropping that section from denial. <br />Osterman says in the draft resolution, the three main parts of title 16 conform in <br />her opinion to the discussion that was had. An item she would like to be added to <br />the resolution is in regards to Section 16.16.020. This relates to drainage areas. <br />It says when possible, drainage should be left in a natural state. It seems like the <br />application does not comply with that section of the code. <br />Krantz agrees. <br />Moline says when we want to see a roadway in this area, there is going to be <br />encroachment in the drainage way. He does not agree with it but he is fine with it <br />being included on the resolution. <br />Brauneis agrees with Moline. <br />Krantz says it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that they have a <br />good reason for altering the drainage course. <br />Osterman says it seems that where the natural channels currently exist, none of <br />them would be maintained. She also mentions that since the commission can <br />make a recommendation of the amount of public land dedication and the type of <br />the land, is it possible to make this recommendation through this denial? <br />Zuccaro says if you find that the the public land dedication does not comply with <br />the standard, you can make that as a finding that it does not comply with the <br />