HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-15-19 Committee Comments:
Josh: The rendering of the retention areas looks gorgeous,but I see residents of putting up tennis courts,basketball
Icourts,and storage sheds on this. We need to discuss in Committee how to preserve this area. We had to rectify this
problem with another development. Bring your ideas in how to preserve this area and prevent people for putting up
courts and sheds. Jon Dobosiewicz: These retention areas are in the common areas,and that's maintained by the HOA.
Josh: For example in Foster Estates,that was a common area,and people put up landscaping mounds, sheds,basketball
and tennis courts. Alexia: Will these retention areas be mowed or will this be natural vegetation? Jon Dobosiewicz:
I'll have an answer to that at Committee.
Laura: How will there be a house on Lot 7 with the pipeline going right through it? Jon Dobosiewicz: The house will
be set to the west of the easement. The site layout can be deceptive but these are 3 acre lots. There's more than enough
room to put a house on these lots adjacent to the pipeline. Nothing will be constructed on the eastside of lots 6& 7. This
will preserve the existing trees. We will bring some site layouts of the building pads to the Committee.
Sue: Where would a stub street be placed at to meet up with the proposed stub street to the south? Jon Dobosiewicz:
Referring to layout, if a street were constructed on our site in Lot 7,the trees would have to be cleared out all the way to
the creek line,because of the large differences in the grade. We think there's a greater sense to preserve this area. The
area directly south of this was plated in 2005. That primary plat was filed before the City passed an ordinance that
restricted development along 116th Street to a minimum of 3 acre per lot.The proposed lots are 1 acre in size,and that's
why they filed the plat before the ordinance was passed. I don't think much thought was put in the proposed location of
their stub street. Staff indicated there might be a better location for a stub street. We know the City can compel that
owner to provide a plan that is different than what was proposed and approved.
Brad: Will a multi-use path be provided in this subdivision? The pipeline easement provides an opportunity for such a
path. Jon Dobosiewicz: There are single residential estates to the north and east. We would construct a path in front of
Iour subdivision for future connectivity to 116th. We will also have 5' wide sidewalks in our subdivision. The biggest
benefit is the ability to get to Coxhall Gardens. Brad: You could construct a path along the east side in the common area
of the tree preservation area and run along the south property line. Jon Dobosiewicz: Lots 6& 7 are not in a common
area. The common area is along the south edge of the perimeter. We can look into additional opportunities for
pedestrian access. Brad: Even those would be enhancements.
Brad: Is there any multi-use path that will tie into the frontage of this subdivision? Jon Dobosiewicz: There is a path
that is north of our development,on the east side of Hoover Road,but that ends at the entrance of VOWC.There is no
path south of our development on the east side of Hoover Road. There is a path that goes along Hoover Road on the west
side of the road. Josh: It would be helpful to have a stretch of path on the frontage of Mr.Hayes' property. Brad: Was
a path required on the frontage for the two estate properties(Foyt&Irsay)northeast of Mr.Hayes property? Alexia: I'll
check and see what was required.
A motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to send Docket Nos. 18110010 PP& 18110012 SW to Residential
Committee on February 5,2019,with the full Plan Commission having final voting authority.
Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati
Old Business
1. Tabled Docket No. 18010004 Z: Westbridge PUD Rezone
with ISBG Capital,LLC.
5
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19