Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />consistent with these rules. At the suggestion of the city engineer, modifications to the plan include <br />directing more of the storm-water to the east, away from the Kelly Avenue wetland <br /> <br />The use of pervious pavers is growing in practice as a means to reduce storm-water runoff. However, it <br />does require some maintenance, and there is no obvious signal that the pervious paver system is not <br />working. Because of those reasons, staff does not support the use of pervious pavers on private property <br />intended to eliminate the need for storm water retention. In the proposed application, staff supports the <br />use because the driveways will be maintained by the homeowners association, and the storm-water <br />system has been sized to assume the driveways are impervious. <br /> <br />Homeowners association. The developer proposes a homeowners association to maintain the driveways <br />and grounds (the street as proposed is public). The governing documents on the homeowners association <br />will be closely reviewed at the time of final plan. <br /> <br />Tree removal/ retention. With the modification of the storm-water plans, it appears 14 significant trees <br />originally thought to be removed will be retained, primarily along the southern property line. <br /> <br />Landscaping. A landscaping plan has been prepared. Preliminary review of the plan shows a desire to <br />retain the exiting tree line between the built area and the wetland slope, near the rear edge of the homes <br />on lots 5, 6, and 7. The ability to retain these trees with the proposed grading will be reviewed. The <br />developer proposes adding 48 new trees, including black hills spruce, willow, maples, and blue spruces. <br />Small ornamentals are also proposed near the storm depression area and at the entrance monument. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission reviewed the project at their meeting on July 18, 2016. The Planning <br />Commission minutes are attached at Exhibit C. The Commission felt that this proposed use and <br />development was appropriate for the area. The Commission recommended approval of the preliminary <br />plat. Included among the conditions was the Park Commission was to review the plan prior to City <br />Council review. Due to timing, the next park commission meeting is scheduled for September, after the <br />City Council reviews the proposal. The Council should determine if Park Commission review is <br />necessary. It is not required by City Ordinance. <br /> <br />Public Comment <br />To date, the city has received a number of comments regarding the proposal. The comments range from <br />supporting the project to suggesting the city deny the project. These letters were provided to the Planning <br />Commission and are included in Exhibit H. While three area residents spoke at the public hearing, a <br />number of residents were unable to attend the public hearing due to personal conflicts. <br /> <br />Action Requested: <br />Direct staff to prepare a resolution supporting the proposed development and incorporating the following <br />actions, with the conditions as indicated: <br />A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, <br />1. The City should identify alternate sites for higher density development. <br />B. Rezoning to RPUD, <br />1. Conditioned on the city approving the final plat. <br />C. Preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions: <br />1. Flexibility being granted for the lot area, width and setback standards of the RPUD