Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Community Development Director Trudgeon explained some efforts have been made by the <br />developer to mitigate these negative effects through the use of a landscaping buffer. However, <br />the Landscape Plan is deficient in addressing the density transitioning landscaping requirements <br />in City Code. Furthermore, any trees planted in the easement along the northern edge of the <br />property along the back yards of Lots 1 through 5 in Block 1 are subject to removal by the <br />United Power Association. The height and size of trees are regulated by the Power Association, <br />and can be removed at any time according to their discretion. Mr. Trudgeon indicated staff <br />received a letter from Shade Tree Communities that outlines the following possible changes they <br />would make, at City Council's discretion, to obtain approval of their plat: providing a berm, <br />appropriate fencing, additional landscaping, and limited building permits on the lots that abut <br />existing lots. The letter also states that Shade Tree is willing to lessen the density of the <br />development to move the plat forward. Mr. Trudgeon advised staff recommends denial of the <br />plat as proposed due to the following reasons: 1) density transitioning has not been adequately <br />addressed through the siting of lots and cannot be adequately addressed through landscaping due <br />to the issues related to the easement and; 2) the lack of a second access remains a significant <br />issue regarding the proposed plat. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon advised the Planning Commission met on April 24, <br />2006 and made a motion (5-2) to recommend denial of the plat, as proposed. There was an <br />inclination to discuss alternatives, but a vote to move the plat forward with a negative <br />recommendation rather than table it for revisions. He advised the Council has been provided <br />with several resolutions for consideration. If the Council is inclined to deny the preliminary plat, <br />findings of fact should be considered. If the Council is inclined to consider approval of the <br />preliminary plat, there should be contingencies included in the approval. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised he would like to review the findings with the Council at the time <br />they are considered for adoption. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated based on the staff recommendation and there not having been a lot of <br />changes made to this application, he does not see a reason not to deny the application. He <br />inquired if the Council has questions or discussion regarding t~e application. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised this plat would be subject to the pending moratorium if it were <br />to be tabled. . He indicated the applicant is present and the City has received a letter from the <br />applicant's attorney dated May 4,2006. <br /> <br />Tom Raudio, attorney representing the applicant, stated he was retained by Shade Tree to advise <br />them regarding the current situation. Shade Tree has been working with staff through the <br />technical aspects of this application. It was only when two events came together that the <br />applicant sought his advice. Those events were the moratorium and the final approval regarding <br />the preliminary plat. Mr. Raudio stated staff, Council and the developer have been working on <br />coming up with a good development for this area. On April 11, the Council adopted an interim <br />ordinance halting all development as of May 14 in the R -1 area. This was an unfortunate <br />consequence in terms of this particular plat, which is very near completion, and hopefully near <br />approval with a few technical issues that can be worked out at the staff level and brought to <br /> <br />City Council / May 9, 2006 <br />Page 7 of 30 <br />