Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 9, 2017 <br />significant grade on this property, noting that from Labore Road to the end <br />of the cul-de-sac there is about a 40 foot grade difference. He stated that <br />the proposed street has a 7 % percent grade, which is steep, but is allowed <br />per the City Code and is maintainable. He noted that to accomplish this <br />development, the developer is relying on a lot of retaining wall, so how this <br />wall would be maintained is something the City will have to address. He <br />explained that the property to the west of this site is only wide enough to <br />allow for a street with lots on one side, so if that gets developed in the <br />future, there will likely be homes with a street in their backyard. He stated <br />staff believes that property owner does not want to participate now, but it is <br />anticipated that at some point in the future there will be interest in <br />developing that parcel. <br />The City Planner stated that he drew a slightly different street layout just to <br />address some issues, but the applicant does not have to use his renderings. <br />Buesing asked if there would be a requirement to have a homeowner's <br />association in order to address the retaining wall maintenance issue. The <br />City Planner stated that is something that will need to be addressed, and an <br />association is one way to do that. <br />Buesing asked if the developer is open to the cul-de-sac suggestions from <br />the City Planner. Mr. Dave Nash, Alliant Engineering, stated that they are <br />not in favor of the alternative street layout because it causes more problems <br />for them since they are dealing with grade issues and would have to install <br />more sanitary sewer structures, but they understand there needs to be more <br />discussion about it. <br />Dan Lincoln, The Lincoln Group, stated he has done developments both <br />with and without a homeowner's associations, and he is open to having one <br />if the City wants it. <br />John Ryan, 981 Payne Avenue, stated he was at the meeting on behalf of <br />his neighbor, Jim Progreba, to the east who is out of town, and asked why <br />the additional lots were shown on the southeast corner. Mr. Nash stated <br />that City Staff asked them to show the additional ways other areas on the <br />property could be developed, but they have no plans to develop the east <br />side of the property. He noted that it is essentially a ghost plan, and mainly <br />shown in order to demonstrate that the east side is not being cut off and can <br />be accessed if development did progress in the future. <br />Sue Nasseff, 2997 Walter Street, asked for a corrected letter stating that <br />only 11 lots are being proposed. The City Planner stated that when the <br />application carne in and the hearing notice was written, it appeared to be an <br />18 lot development. He noted that any future notices would only indicate <br />what is being developed. <br />-2- <br />