08/14/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Specific Highlights Premature Subdivision Standards and MUSA Allocation Criteria: These are included in the General Provisions, Sec. 1002. A proposed plat will be compared to these standards to ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support the plat. Note that several items refer to the City's growth management policy. This policy, which will set out specific methods to monitor growth and keep it at the desired level, will be finalized by the City Council in the next few months. Sketch Plan Review: An informal sketch plan step has been added. It is not mandatory but is strongly recommended. Making it mandatory would start the clock on the review deadline. This would not fit into our review process. Therefore, we will emphasize the value of an informal sketch plan review process. We expect most developers will participate. Preliminary Plat: Requirements include a tree preservation plan and a phasing plan. Tree Plan: The tree plan requirements do not mandate preserving a specified percentage of trees. Rather, they require a complete inventory of all trees that will be affected by the development. City staff and the developer will discuss the potential for saving trees, and the plan will then clearly list which trees will be lost and which will be saved. If trees are lost that were designated to be saved, they must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. We will add text on page 1004.3 to clarify that the tree preservation plan, as described in Section 1009, is mandatory. Phasing Plan: The required phasing plan for each plat will specify a schedule for the final platting of portions of the development. For example, the phasing of a 150 -lot plat might allow fifty lots to be final platted this year, fifty next year, and fifty the next. This way, we can track exactly how many lots will be created in each of several years in the future. • One point for P & Z discussion is on page 1004.11, paragraph 16. As the developer implements a project's phasing plan, a final plat application for phase two will likely be submitted as phase one is nearing completion. The question is, should the City require that a certain percentage of phase one is built out before the final plat for the next phase can be submitted? This requirement would ensure that the project is proceeding according to the schedule rather than having a large number of lots platted but not selling. It is important that the lots that are approved do get built on in order to meet the growth goals. On the other hand, the demand for housing is so great that this probably will not be a problem, and such a requirement may be more trouble than it's worth. If, developer A isn't on schedule, do we give his MUSA to another developer? How do we track these once we have a schedule of approved lots established for the next three years?