08/11/2004 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A ugu st 11, 2 004 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty inquired about the twin home located on the property. Mr. Smyser replied there would be a zero lot line with the middle of the twin home being located on the lot line. He indicated each twin home would then have a piece of property. Chair Rafferty stated he did not mind common property, but he was not in favor of a 40- foot lot. However, this did conform to the preliminary plat. Mr. Smyser noted this was an unusual situation. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Fi nal Plat for Crystal Cove, North Suburban Development, SW corner of Lake Drive and 79 th Street and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. D. Recommendation on Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways and Trail System Plan Staff stated Brauer and Asso ciates has prepared the City’s new Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways and Trail Plan. This plan lays out an important new direction by establishing goals in open space planning, which require some new approaches to development review. Staff requested a r ecommendation from the P&Z that the City Council approve the new plan. Jeff Schoenbauer, Brauer and Associates , presented the propo sed Natural Open Space/Greenways and Trail Plan. He discusse d how the plan could be implemented and what it would look like. He st ated the City was at a thres hold point and it was important to set aside the open space/greenwa ys and trail systems now. Mr. Root stated he liked the concept, but it was important to also look at the maintenance cost for the City. He stated he liked the c oncept of a park dedicat ion fee, but asked how would a trail system plan work. He indicat ed he would like to see something firm and defined like the park dedication fee requirement. He stated they needed to figure out how to do this when staff already had their hands full. He asked for something concrete that developers would cl early understand. Mr. Schoenbauer stated it had been his experience the best way to illustrate how this happened would be to go through a prototype process. He believed the most creative development plans came out of the creative pr ocess and not a regulatory process. He noted the unique thing about a conserva tion development was the City laid out proactively what they wanted to achieve on a piece of property and then staff applied those concepts to the plan. He stated ther e was only so many hours staff could put into a development proposal, and if staff could be much more in the forefront and proactive with the developer, the devel oper can actually be influenced right from the beginning to achieve what the City was looking for, which made the approval process easier and quicker. He stated he was confident this ty pe of a process would work, but he respected Mr. Root’s concerns. Mr. Grochala stated from staff’s standpoint, they want ed to go this way on new developments. He indicated there was a window of opportunity here and they wanted to