Planning Commission Minutes 2006 09 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Page 5 of 15 Loo asked why the City of Lafayette had a water main running through the property in the City of Louisville. Wood described the location of the water main for the Commissioners and then explained the easement was needed for the maintenance and repair of the line by Lafayette. Hartman asked how many building permits are permitted per year in the Comprehensive Plan. Wood stated 150 per year. Deborski asked how many homes are planned in Phase I. Wood stated there are 217 units, not necessarily all single-family. Deborski discussed other concerns as follows: lake seepage, cost of insurance for the dam, and what liability the City will incur. Deborski and Sheets had several questions related to the pocket parks: where are they located, timeline for park development, maintenance of those parks and what guarantees does the City have that they will be developed. Wood identified the locations of the proposed parks, the parks would be developed as part of each of the phasing areas and maintenance is through an HOA. He also referenced the Subdivision Agreement that will detail the required public improvements, the acceptance by the City for those improvements and if necessary the ability of the City to have a letter of credit. Loo asked for clarification of the Economic Analysis: Is it based on the total development and has the City's Finance Director reviewed and does she agree with the analysis? Wood stated that he has nothing in writing from the Finance Department but he was aware that it had been reviewed by the director. Wood reminded the Commissioners that until approximately two years ago they were not requested to review the fiscal impacts of a development. Lipton stated that the fiscal impact is important to those large developments that are proposing a Phasing Plan. Deborski discussed the liability the City will have for the next three years without any significant revenue from commercial development. He also requested clarification of the height of structures. Wood noted the height of accessory structures on the PUD development plan. Deborski continued with a discussion of the parks, trails and a possible affordable housing component. He stressed that trail connectivity is a very important component. He asked what the applicant is offering over and above the required in return for the additional housing unit. Wood clarified the required public use dedication as 15%. He stated that the plan includes a 25% public use dedication which includes pocket parks throughout the proposed development. Sheets stated that she was disappointed to learn that the Art Center was not part of the final submittal and asked when it had been removed. Wood stated that the removal was at the direction from the Commission to the Applicant during the Preliminary review process.