Agenda - Council - 11/28/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Community Development Director Gladhill confirmed that the greenway corridor is off this plat but will become a part of the plat during this process. He stated that the City will not own the buffer area. He stated that the depth for R-1 is not met by the eastern boundary lots and wanted to ensure that it is clear that is part of the PUD. He stated that a separate easement would be placed over the buffer, similar to what occurred with the Woodlands development. Councilmember Shryock asked for information on the lot depth and buffer that would exist between the existing homes and the proposed development. Mayor Strommen stated that she does not feel that she has enough information on whether the public benefit being received is commensurate for the additional lots. She appreciated the compromises that have occurred thus far but noted that she is not using that original request as the starting point but instead is using the existing City standards as the starting point with this proposal as the comparison. She stated that typically the open space being provided for a PUD is within the same plat. She noted that a lot of the open space is wetland and the trail corridor and therefore she is not sure if that is of equal benefit or whether that would be gained through park dedication under normal development of this property. She stated that she is on board with the process of a greenway corridor but she was unsure if that is something that would only be provided in this proposal or whether that would come in through the development of this area. She stated that the language states that the permittee controls the greenway land but the owner actually controls the land. She did not feel that she had enough information to make a decision on this. She stated that the eastern boundary should meet the design standards of the R-1 zoning district and was still unsure that the public benefit is equal to the additional density and flexibility being provided. She noted that the decision needs to be made as to whether the deviation from the Comprehensive Plan and zoning standards is equal to the public benefit that would be provided. Community Development Director Gladhill noted that the item was reviewed by the Park Commission and noted that minutes from that meeting can come back to the Council when this is discussed again. He asked if there is conceptual consensus with this proposal. Mayor Strommen stated that she does not have enough data to move forward in a concept. She stated that she does not see the comparable data and is not comfortable moving forward without that input from the Park Commission and Environmental Policy Board (EPB). City Planner Anderson stated that the EPB reviewed this information at their October meeting and generally supported the proposal. He noted that the group focused on density transitioning and did support the public benefit of securing the land for the greenway corridor. He noted that the group did not discuss the upland/wetland ratio. Councilmember Shryock stated that she also shared the concern of Mayor Strommen and agreed that the Park Commission would discuss whether to accept land or funds for park dedication and therefore she wondered whether this would be provided under normal development. Councilmember Riley stated that he was unsure if the greenway would become part of the plat. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that the greenway could be included as an outlot as part of the plat itself. Councilmember Riley stated that these are two very different issues of park dedication and the public areas that would be gained. Community Development Director Gladhill agreed that if this is accepted as the public benefit, he would feel that the next iteration would need to show the park dedication in addition to this public benefit. Mr. Roessler stated that they would not be contributing park land and would pay park dedication in addition to the greenway and trail contribution. He explained that the density was determined by reviewing the property values of the existing homes in the area and the values proposed by Capstone. He explained that they would need to match the values of the surrounding area and would not want to be a "unicorn" in terms of pricing in that area. He stated that if you were to develop the property at the R-1 standards throughout the development, the prices would far exceed the City Council Minutes Excerpt October 24, 2017