Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 33 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Premature Subdivision Standards and MUSA Allocation Criteria: These are included in <br />the General Provisions, Sec. 1002. A proposed pl at will be compared to these standards <br />to ensure there is adequate infr astructure to support the plat. <br />Note that several items refer to the City’s growth management policy. This policy, which <br />will set out specific methods to monitor growth and keep it at the desired level, will be <br />finalized by the City Council in the next few months. <br />Sketch Plan Review: An informal sketch pl an step has been added. It is not mandatory <br />but is strongly recommended. Making it manda tory would start the clock on the review <br />deadline. This would not fit into our review process. Th erefore, we will emphasize the <br />value of an informal sketch plan review process. We expect most developers will <br />participate. <br />Preliminary Plat: Requirements include a tree preservation plan and a phasing plan. <br />Tree Plan:The tree plan requirements do not mandate preserving a specified <br />percentage of trees. Rather, they require a complete inventory of all trees that will be <br />affected by the development. City staff and the developer will discuss the potential for <br />saving trees, and the plan will then clearly li st which trees will be lost and which will be <br />saved. If trees are lost that were designated to be saved, they must be replaced at a 2:1 <br />ratio. We will add text on page 1004.3 to cl arify that the tree preservation plan, as <br />described in Section 1009, is mandatory. <br />Phasing Plan: The required phasing plan for each plat will specify a schedule for the <br />final platting of portions of the development. For example, the phasing of a 150-lot plat <br />might allow fifty lots to be final platted this year, fifty next year, a nd fifty the next. This <br />way, we can track exactly how many lots will be created in each of several years in the <br />future. <br />One point for P & Z discussion is on pa ge 1004.11, paragraph 16. As the developer <br />implements a project’s phasing plan, a final plat application for phase two will likely be <br />submitted as phase one is nearing completi on. The question is, should the City require <br />that a certain percentage of pha se one is built out before th e final plat for the next phase <br />can be submitted? <br />This requirement would ensure that the proj ect is proceeding acco rding to the schedule <br />rather than having a large number of lots platted but not selli ng. It is important that the <br />lots that are approved do get built on in order to meet the growth goals. On the other <br />hand, the demand for housing is so great that this probably will not be a problem, and <br />such a requirement may be more trouble th an it’s worth. If, developer A isn’t on <br />schedule, do we give his MUSA to another developer? How do we track these once we <br />have a schedule of approved lots es tablished for the next three years? <br />Two clarifications should be added to th e text. On page 1004.4, requirements for the <br />preliminary plat sheet shou ld include showing the delin eated wetland boundaries and the <br />ordinary high water level of any protected wa ters. This will be added as paragraph 16. on