Agenda - Council - 04/26/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and was very thorough in its review. He stated that they did expect comments and revisions that would be needed, as preliminary plat never hits all the marks from the beginning. Commissioner VanScoy stated that perhaps WSB providing a review added to the number of comments. He asked if this is pretty much a standard preliminary plat in the eyes of staff. Deputy City Administrator/Community Development Director Hagen replied that staff does view this as complete or would have deemed it as incomplete before bringing it to the Commission. He stated that it does appear that the application will meet the standards. Commissioner Walker echoed the comments of Commissioner Anderson. He stated that he is not comfortable with this group purchasing the property with the intention of selling part of the property at a later date for the commercial portion. He stated that with the Highway 10 project and inflation, he worries that the City will end up with three acres of nothing. He stated that he would prefer to see a complete plan for the entire site and therefore will not support the request. Commissioner Anderson stated that he was unable to find the staff comments within the case. He stated that too many questions were raised that he could not do the research on and believed the case to be incomplete at this time. He suggested tabling this to the next meeting which would provide more time for review to provide an honest recommendation to the City Council. Deputy City Administrator/Community Development Director Hagen replied that the staff comments were included in the attachment to the case titled plans with review comments. He stated that the Commission would have the ability to table if desired. Commissioner VanScoy stated that he shared some of the concerns about what he read and how he interpreted it. He stated that the staff recommendation is that this is ready to be approved as preliminary plat and move forward. Deputy City Administrator/Community Development Director Hagen confirmed that is correct. He noted that the R-2 and R-3 standards are very similar and therefore the majority of what will change will be those standards but believed that those standards are met in the request as the bulk standards are very similar for those districts. He agreed that many of these items are housekeeping in nature, such as showing the setbacks on the plan. He stated that the applicant could make some of the changes and updated documents could be provided to the City Council for its review, or the conditions could remain for that review and the project could be approved contingent upon those conditions. Senior Planner Anderson stated that this goes through the full development review with every City department reviewing the plans. He noted that if one of those departments identified a significant issue, it would not be before the Commission for consideration. He stated that it is not the volume of comments but how impactful those comments would be to a layout. He stated that while there are a handful of comments, none of them raised to that level where staff believed it should not move forward. He stated that the recommendation is contingent upon compliance with all of those comments. Planning Commission/March 24, 2022 Page 11 of 18