Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2016

Home

5.02: Consider Landscape and Tree Preservation Plans for Woodlands 411 Addition; Case of Lennar Corporation City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He stated that Lennar Corporation,the applicant, has submitted an application for both a Preliminary Plat and variance for their final phase of the Woodlands project, Woodlands 4th Addition. He reported that the project site is generally located north of Alpine Drive and east of Variolite Street. He advised that a portion of Woodlands 4th Addition has already received Preliminary Plat approval; the applicant has a purchase agreement in place with the property owner to the south to acquire approximately 15 acres that would be incorporated into Woodlands 4th Addition. He noted that thiseview is specific to this "new" parcel, which is proposed to have 13 lots. He stated that staff firs the Landscape Plan generally acceptable with revisions outlines in the staff review letter. While additional information is needed regarding the Tree Preservation Plan to determine if any reforestation will be needed, staff does not believe that this alone should prevent this request from moving forward. The specific revisions and additional information needed is outlined in the staff review letter and any recommendation for approval can simply be made contingenton compliance with the_sta f review letter. Board Member Hiatt asked if things could be shi bit to 'd the vari City Planner Anderson stated that o tion was looked into ut id not think that w uld be an option in this case. He noted that the Planning Commission did follow the recommendation of this Board in the Brookfield case and the two variance lots were eliminated to create one lot. He explained that if the variance were not approved tate applicant would mosely go back and redraw the Preliminary Plat to spl' tween th maining lots_. Chairperson Stodola asked why st s not rec ndin a �5val of the variance. � � Y g PP City Planner Anderson stated that there not a to f excess side area to accommodate for the improvements, noting that this is a minoi`'encroachment. He stated that there does not seem to be a justcaton or practical difficulty to warrant the variance other than it being a minor encroachment. He stated that staff also believes that even though variances are considered on a case by case basis,there shou consistency in appliance of the rules. He noted that in a previous variance reque e lots provi excess aAa in another portion of the lot. Councilmember L eau a if Lennar spoke at all about replatting, whether one less lot would prevent the pro ro I forward. City Planner Anderson stat that he did not explicitly state that staff was not supportive of the variance, as staff was still discussing the topic up until today. He stated that staff was hard pressed to find a justification for the variance. He stated that from the perspective of staff they did not see the lot meeting the intent of the ordinance. He noted that it is a narrow strip of 125 square feet that encroaches into the wetland setback area,which is smaller than the encroachment that would have existed in the Brookfield case. Councilmember LeTourneau asked and received confirmation that the encroachment area is outside of the house pad and is the lot itself.