Laserfiche WebLink
7.03: Adopt Resolution #21-018 Providing Feedback for Bacon Property Sketch Plan; Case <br />of Bill Boyum <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill reviewed the staff report and recommendation to adopt the <br />resolution and provide the applicant feedback on which concept plan to move forward with and <br />develop a formal sketch plan application. <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked for the potential to have a wider road to help with concerns that <br />could arise from the length of the cul-de-sac. She asked if there is an easement on the northern <br />portion of the property that could provide a connection to a future road. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill replied that this concept does not include an easement for a <br />future road, as it would be unlikely that a connection would be made because of the wetlands. He <br />stated that staff has made the comment that the road be widened to 32 feet wide, recognizing that <br />there are some wetland constraints. <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she agrees with a width of 32 feet. She stated that in <br />the Commission there was a narrative for a proposal with 19 lots and asked if there is potential for <br />that to move forward. She clarified that she does prefer the nine -lot configuration. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that the developer is only seeking input on the nine -lot <br />configuration and is not submitting the 19-lot proposal. <br />Motion by Councilmember Musgrove, seconded by Councilmember Woestehoff, to Adopt <br />Resolution #21-018 Providing Feedback on Proposed Subdivision on Bacon Property. <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Riley commented that he likes the nine -lot configuration and <br />agreed that staff should work with the developer on the road width in order to provide the best <br />product that everyone can support. Councilmember Musgrove asked for information on <br />easements, recognizing that those can cause challenges. Deputy City Administrator Gladhill <br />commented that there would not be a conservation easement or density transitioning in this case. <br />He clarified that the process for conservation easements and density transitioning has changed to <br />provide ownership and enforcement ability for the City. <br />