Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 11/13/2017

Home

homeowners to the east to plant on their own property as well, to provide additional buffer. He identified adjacent features including Lake Itasca and the planned greenway corridor. He stated that the property owner is open to conveying the necessary land for a greenway corridor and enough upland for a trail in return for the PUD, which would allow the requested zoning and flexibility in lots widths. He stated that this property is similar to the previous parcel in regard to the natural resources inventory and provided details. He stated that because this is a similar development and parcel, he would assume the overall suggestions from the previous case would carry forward along with the transitioning zone to the east. He asked for suggestions on the transition zone to the east, as that would be a requirement in addition to suggestions for the greenway corridor. Councilmember LeTourneau asked if there was public input at the public hearing the previous week held by the Planning Commission. City Planner Anderson noted that there was a public open house the hour prior to the public hearing where the Sketch Plan was displayed and a mailing invited residents within 700 feet of the property boundaries. He noted that there were a lot of residents present that expressed some comments outside of the topic, using the example of the need for more schools. He stated that one neighbor was appointed as a spokesperson who summarized that there has been compromise between the developer and residents and therefore they were generally pleased with the changes but were also disappointed because they did not feel they were adequately informed that the residents could have pushed to keep the underlying zoning and instead felt that this was the best they would be able to get out of this. He stated that staff felt that they did a good job expressing the options but acknowledged that the sentiment was expressed. He stated that WSB created a mock scenario to demonstrate, in concept, what a typical R-1 development could have looked like that would have included about 70 lots that met the minimum standards. He noted that concept would not have included the land donation for the greenway corridor. He stated that one resident stated that if they would have known that was an option, they would have pushed for that. Councilmember LeTourneau asked if there were any public comments more related to the discussion tonight. City Planner Anderson noted that the density transitioning is key. He stated that the developer has amended their plan on the eastern portion of the parcel to meet the straight R-1 zoning and then transitions from there. Chairperson Stodola stated that seems like a good compromise. City Planner Anderson stated that the neighborhood acknowledged that both the neighbors and the developer have compromised to get to this point. He stated that there is not a homeowners' association proposed with this, so each resident would be responsible for their own snow removal and turf maintenance. He confirmed the consensus of the Board to apply the same overall goals and suggestions from the previous case. Board Member Hiatt stated that the greenway corridor appears to cut through the southwest corner and asked if the plan will need to be adapted for the pond. Environmental Policy Board / October 16, 2017 Page 6 of 9