Laserfiche WebLink
5.01: Review of Harvest Estates 2nd Addition (Project No. 18-161); Case of Meadowcreek <br />Builders <br />City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He stated that the purpose of the case is to review <br />various elements related to a proposed Preliminary Plat for Harvest Estates 2nd Addition. This is <br />the second phase of development of the former Municipal Center site, located off Nowthen <br />Boulevard, just south of Alpine Drive. The development proposal is for 15 new single-family <br />homes, accessed with an extension of 152nd Lane NW connecting to Krypton Terrace NW. The <br />property is zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) and the surrounding land to the east, west and south is <br />also zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA), while the land to the northwest and north is zoned PUD <br />(Single family development with slightly narrow lots than what City Code had allowed at that <br />time). He recommended approval of the Landscaping Plan contingent upon compliance with the <br />Staff Review Letter. <br />Board Member Fetterley expressed appreciation with placing the tree requirement on the builder <br />rather than the homeowner. She asked what would happen in the case that the requirement is <br />placed on the homeowner rather than the developer. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that staff would prefer for the developer or builder to be responsible <br />for the trees but noted that there are times when that is pushed down to the individual homeowner. <br />He explained that details are provided on the tree requirements when a building permit is obtained. <br />He stated that if the landscaping requirement has not been met upon inspection, an escrow is held <br />until the landscaping is completed. He stated that once the requirement is met, the escrow would <br />be released. He stated that there are measures in place to ensure that the landscaping plan is <br />accomplished. <br />Board Member Covart referenced the vegetation on the northeast corner and asked for additional <br />details on note 12. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that there are areas proposed for tree cover removal. He stated that <br />he is asking for the specific tree inventory information to be added to that sheet. He stated that <br />this would provide additional clarification on the specific trees that are proposed to be removed <br />which assists the contractor that will be completing the work. <br />City Council Liaison Shryock stated that there was a resident letter referencing the vegetation <br />removal on the southern portion of the lot. She stated that from the maps the vegetation on the <br />southern boundary is proposed for removal and asked for additional input as there is not <br />replacement proposed in that area. She stated that it appears that the trees proposed for planting <br />seem to be helping the new homes rather than providing buffering for the existing property owners. <br />City Planner Anderson displayed the proposed landscaping plan and identified the trees referenced <br />by Council Liaison Shryock. He stated that when this project originally came forward there was <br />an overall tree inventory and landscaping plan that looked at the project being constructed at one <br />time. He stated that the trees referenced by Council Liaison Shryock were proposed to be removed, <br />not for house pads, but for grading purposes to ensure proper drainage. He stated that there could <br />be further investigation to determine if the drainage grading could occur without damaging the <br />root base of the trees. <br />Environmental Policy Board / January 14, 2019 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />