6.8. SR 05-17-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 23, 2004 5.3. Request by S & A F~ii¥ L-~vestments. LT.~,P for PrelhTEn~v Pla~ Approval of l-Ells, PubL(c l-Iearin§ - Case No. P 04-02 The staff repor~ for this kern was presented by Senior Plarmer Sco~ t-{arlicker. S & A Family Investments requests preliminary plat approval for Woodland I-q_ills to subdivide 50.95 acres into 111 single famiiy lots arm 7 ou~ot$. Mr. ~--~ar]J. cker reviewed access and street cormections, sidewalk locations, street layout, landscaping, and park dedication requirements. Mr. Harlicker then reviewed the findings from the Subdivision OrdSz~ance for approval of the preliminary plat. Commissioner ,~aderson asked what was the purpose of Outlot G. Mr. Harlic~er stated that it is a drainage area vehick will be split and added to the adjacent lots. Chair Ropp asked for clarification on the condemnation proposed by the Park and Recreation Commission. Director of Plating Michele McPherson explained that 1.89 acres above and beyond the 10 percent land dedication would be required in order to maintain a 200-foot buffer. The Park and tLecreatlon Commission is recommending that the City negotiate the sale of this property at a fair market price, and if no agreement can be reach, that the City proceed with condemnation of the 1.89 acres. Mr. Harlicker explained the · difference between the two buffer layouts and distances from property line to property line along the buffer zone. Commissioner Anderson asked what the purpose of Outlot C would be. Mr. Harlicker stated that the parcel is not large enough for a lot and wouM need to be combined with the adjacent lot. Chair Ropp opened the public hearing. Scott Breuer, representing the applicants, referenced the Park and Recreation memo dated September 10, 2003 regardSmg the buffer being between the homes and the trail. Fie explained that widths of the proposed buffer along the east property line in both the submitted pr?posal and a modified plan. Fie stated that they are willing to make the buffer work, but that it will require them to be more creative in the home designs. Commissioner Anderson asked Lf the buffer is measured from the =ail or from the property line. Mr. Breuer stated that the buffer zone is measured from the property line. Commissioner Anderson asked ff Mr. Breuer 'l~aew where the homes wS]l be located on each lot at t~s time. Mr. Breuer stated yes, that the grading plan shows the potential house pad locations. Commissioner Offerman asked for clarifica6on on the differences between the two plans. Ma'. Breuer explained. Mr. l-ffarlicker noted that there is no difference in the total number of lots, just in the location of the lots. John Kuester, representing the Park and Recreation Commission, stated teat the Park and Recreation Commission is willing to purchase the additional property in order to achieve a 200-foot buffer, but that they have recommended conderrmation if negations are not successful, life stated that the Commission has concerns regard~g the densiV, deforestation and elevations, and that the Commission does not feel this property is suitable for the scale o£ development proposed by the applicant and recommends that the Plmming Commission recommend denial.