Agenda - Council - 12/12/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember LeTourneau stated that in his mind the density transitioning is the most significant input and therefore he would like to have as much relief as possible. He stated that he would hate for the Council to promise to the existing residents that they would do what the code says without achieving that, or getting really close. Community Development Director Gladhill identified the lots that would be lost with the requirement for the additional lot depth, per the comments from the developer. He stated that either way, a decision would need to be made today and would not recommend tabling the matter again. Mr. Roessler stated that if the five feet is the difference between approving and not approving, he would prefer the City approve with the full buffer rather than deny. Councilmember Shryock stated that there seems to be a lot of discussion and some confusion as to what has been, or would be, acquired to satisfy the different fees and requirements. Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood stated that the trail along Bunker Lake Boulevard was constructed as a necessary piece of infrastructure, as is done along all arterial roads. He stated that the four acres did meet the park dedication for what the developer is calling the Alpha Project. He noted that any proceeds from the sale of that land would go back to the park trust fund. He stated that there is some difference in opinion over the park dedication being satisfied for the Alpha Project, noting that if there is additional park dedication that could conceivably be due, the park dedication fees would not be much. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that Hageman Holdings did not pay for 100 percent of the trail along Bunker/Puma, noting that the City had a large cost in that as well. Mayor Strommen asked if the greenway corridor was not considered when the Legacy project was approved, as the greenway has been mapped for years. Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood provided additional details, noting that the Legacy project was not amenable to public use when they came for preliminary plat. He stated that the City did mention the greenway corridor, but the boardwalk was instead considered as an option, but it was not resolved as to whether that would be the best option as the project did not ultimately move forward. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that Legacy was concerned with public use that close to their school and that is why the boardwalk was considered and the four acres was obtained that could be sold. Councilmember Johns stated that if the PUD is approved, the trail connection would be great for the City. She stated that she is very concerned with the density transitioning and those details would need to be firmed up. She asked if the trail construction would be included or whether it would simply include conveyance of the land. City Council / November 28, 2017 Page 9 of 12