09-12-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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