Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Shryock asked for information on the lot depth and buffer that would exist <br /> between the existing homes and the proposed development. <br /> Mayor Strommen stated that she does not feel that she has enough information on whether the <br /> public benefit being received is commensurate for the additional lots. She appreciated the <br /> compromises that have occurred thus far but noted that she is not using that original request as <br /> the starting point but instead is using the existing City standards as the starting point with this <br /> proposal as the comparison. She stated that typically the open space being provided for a PUD is <br /> within the same plat. She noted that a lot of the open space is wetland and the trail corridor and <br /> therefore she is not sure if that is of equal benefit or whether that would be gained through park <br /> dedication under normal development of this property. She stated that she is on board with the <br /> process of a greenway corridor but she was unsure if that is something that would only be <br /> provided in this proposal or whether that would come in through the development of this area. <br /> She stated that the language states that the permittee controls the greenway land but the owner <br /> actually controls the land. She did not feel that she had enough information to make a decision <br /> on this. She stated that the eastern boundary should meet the design standards of the R-1 zoning <br /> district and was still unsure that the public benefit is equal to the additional density and <br /> flexibility being provided. She noted that the decision needs to be made as to whether the <br /> deviation from the Comprehensive Plan and zoning standards is equal to the public benefit that <br /> would be provided. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill noted that the item was reviewed by the Park <br /> Commission and noted that minutes from that meeting can come back to the Council when this is <br /> discussed again. He asked if there is conceptual consensus with this proposal. <br /> Mayor Strommen stated that she does not have enough data to move forward in a concept. She <br /> stated that she does not see the comparable data and is not comfortable moving forward without <br /> that input from the Park Commission and Environmental Policy Board (EPB). <br /> City Planner Anderson stated that the EPB reviewed this information at their October meeting <br /> and generally supported the proposal. He noted that the group focused on density transitioning <br /> and did support the public benefit of securing the land for the greenway corridor. He noted that <br /> the group did not discuss the upland/wetland ratio. <br /> Councilmember Shryock stated that she also shared the concern of Mayor Strommen and agreed <br /> that the Park Commission would discuss whether to accept land or funds for park dedication and <br /> therefore she wondered whether this would be provided under normal development. <br /> Councilmember Riley stated that he was unsure if the greenway would become part of the plat. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill stated that the greenway could be included as an <br /> outlot as part of the plat itself. <br /> Councilmember Riley stated that these are two very different issues of park dedication and the <br /> public areas that would be gained. <br /> City Council/October 24, 2017 <br /> Page 12 of 16 <br />