Laserfiche WebLink
He noted that having values in the $300,000s would be much more appropriate and would also <br />help to increase the home values of those already development nearby. He stated that it is hard <br />to bring forward $200,000 in preliminary engineering costs for the preliminary plat process if <br />they do not know the outcome and receive positive input from the Council. He stated that this <br />process allows them to determine if the Council is onboard and, if so, they would move forward <br />to work out additional details through the preliminary plat process. He stated that the greenway <br />corridor would be of great value to the community and he did not believe would be available to <br />the City outside of this request through typical development of this property. He stated that the <br />additional 27 homes would provide increased tax benefits, the greenway corridor, $75,000 in <br />park dedication fees, $25,000 in trail dedication fees, and the savings of not having to create a <br />boardwalk to provide the trail connection. <br />Councilmember Shryock asked, if this were to move forward and additional units were removed <br />from the development, what would be the break point of the developer for this to be successful. <br />Mr. Roessler replied that 100 units was their break point and they have varied down to 97 units <br />at this time. He stated that they would not want to lose additional units. <br />Councilmember Riley asked for additional input on a conditional zoning amendment, what <br />would be provided and how the City would still be protected. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill stated that the conditional zoning would allow <br />approval, as long as the development that comes forward through the plat process matches what <br />is proposed. He stated that this would prevent the developer from pitching something <br />completely different than proposed today. He stated that this would provide entitlement, in that <br />if the developer brings forward a preliminary plat matching this proposal, it would be allowed to <br />move forward. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau stated that he struggles with the density transitioning, as the <br />proposal is still 15 feet short of the requirement. He noted that the berm would bring that down <br />to five feet and asked what would need to happen to match the depth requirement. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill noted that there is a menu of options, including <br />matching existing adjacent lot sizes, a 45-foot landscape buffer with no berm, or a 35-foot <br />landscape buffer with a berm. He stated that the developer could choose the berm option which <br />would decrease the deficiency to five feet. He stated that the direction from the Council has <br />always been to require wider and deeper lots, to match the R-1 standards, and therefore the City <br />could choose to make the developer match that requirement exactly. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau asked for input from Paxmar on how they could match the model. <br />Mr. Roessler stated that they are willing to put the berm in to be within the five-foot area. He <br />stated that if they lose the five -feet they will lose homes on the other side. He stated that they <br />intended to match the 85-foot width as that matched the number of units in the adjacent <br />development. <br />City Council / November 28, 2017 <br />Page 8 of 12 <br />