Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />followed. He noted the only oblig ation the City had was for a staff member to meet with <br />the homeowners association yearly to see wh ere the association intended to spend the <br />money for that year in natural resource maintenance. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty asked once this was turned ove r to the association, who would force the <br />association to administer the funds for the particular areas. Mr. Schoenbauer stated the <br />City would have the legal authority to step in and say they were not using the funds <br />appropriately and the City could take legal action against the association. <br /> <br />Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated this had been a process, which was not easy. He <br />noted they had hoped to have this proposal a pproved by this time. He stated City staff <br />and the consultants were doing a good job and th ey both had the intere sts of the City in <br />mind. He noted this was “new waters” for them and they had to go outside of their shell <br />for this development. He stated the ideas be ing presented were new to them, but they had <br />gone along with the proposals. He believed this development met with the letter and <br />intent of the zoning, including a trail corri dor and significant open space with a large <br />buffer along the west side of the development. He stated once this was done, he believed <br />everyone would be proud of the development. He stated there had be en a lot of give and <br />take on this development and asked the Board to look at the development as an entire <br />package. He stated all of the elements needed to be looked at as a package. He stated he <br />did not want to negotiate with staff and th en find out that the Planning & Zoning Board <br />or Council wanted something diffe rent. He indicated they were asking for a flexibility of <br />a 20-foot rear yard setback and a 25-foot front yard setback, if necessary in order to allow <br />more open space in the back of the homes. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty asked how far the home would be located with a 25-foot front yard <br />setback. Mr. Smyser replied the homes would be 34 feet from the curb. He noted the <br />side yard setback would remain at 5 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Black stated the average width of the lots were 95 feet wide. Chair Rafferty stated he <br />was concerned that the development would look “boxy” if the homes were located too <br />close together. <br /> <br />Mr. Root inquired about the st ormwater run off into the existing neighborhoods and the <br />traffic issue which had been c oncerns at the last meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoenbauer replied with respect to the stormwater runoff, no water would leave the <br />site and go into the adjoining developments. He stated they would manage all water they <br />could on site and if water left the site, the flow rates would be no more than they were <br />currently and the water quality would the same, if not better, than it was currently. He <br />stated one of the objectives of this devel opment would be to improve the water quality. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle asked if any water from the existi ng neighborhood flow into this development. <br />Mr. Schoenbauer replied if it did, the wate r would be handled by this development. <br /> <br />Steve Helmer, TKDA, replied with respect to traffic, the PM peak hour conditions the <br />project impact would equal 3.4 seconds/vehic le added delay for nor thbound approach of <br />Deerwood Lane/Birch Road intersection. He stated the AM peak hour conditions the