_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Staff Report | Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 & ST 24-3) <br />While the area south of Videra Park was developed as shown, none of the current subject <br />property was ever developed as shown on the original site plan. Those prior approvals from the <br />have since expired so the layout and associated requirements for preservation areas as <br />previously approved have no effect on the current proposal which, as proposed by the <br />applicant with a revised layout, requires review under the land use code’s approval criteria and <br />procedures in effect at this time. <br /> <br />The May 19, 2024, Videra Drive HOA submission (which is also authored by Larry Smith) <br />expresses concerns with the existing wetlands, stormwater, the proposed construction and its <br />effect on the water basin. Questions are raised on deferring storm water plans to subsequent <br />building permits, storm water flow control, downstream stormwater capacity, lack of retention, <br />removal of wetland soil, diverting flows, stormwater facility operations and maintenance plan, <br />and lack of a stormwater easement for the detention facility. To the extent that this testimony <br />relates to specific approval criteria, further evaluation is provided in this report at EC <br />9.8325(5)(j), specifically EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, <br />flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and <br />maintenance. <br /> <br />The June 6, 2024, submission from Amy Keech expresses concern with high property taxes, lack <br />of public transportation, “lackluster” schools, lack of police services and the only redeeming <br />value in the area is green spaces. Staff notes that most of these concerns are not listed as <br />criteria for approval for these applications. Public transportation is addressed in the evaluation <br />below at EC 9.8325(4) and EC 9.8520(4). <br /> <br />Additional testimony has been received from various members of the public, expressing the <br />following concerns: <br />(a) Bypassing tree preservation codes at EC 9.6880-9.6885; loss of old trees. <br />(b) Lack of a Traffic Impact Analysis, increased traffic <br />(c) Existing on-street parking and effect on emergency response. <br />(d) Proposal contradicts the environmental, safety and land use goals of the City. <br />(e) Protection of the stream and changes to the on-site wetlands. <br /> <br />Regarding (a), the preservation of natural resources is discussed in the findings of compliance <br />with EC 9.8325(3). As noted, the tree preservation standards at EC 9.6885 will be addressed <br />during future building permits for individual lots as they develop. Regarding (b), the <br />“Housing/Clear and Objective” standards at EC 9.8325 do not include a requirement for a <br />Traffic Impact Analysis. Safe and adequate transportation systems are found through <br />compliance with the approval criteria in EC 9.8325(4). Regarding (c) The existing street system <br />adjacent to the site is built to City standards and the proposed private street extension of <br />Randy Lane will also meet the City’s private street standards, as addressed in in the findings of <br />compliance with EC 9.8325(4), specifically EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, <br />Alleys, and Other Public Ways. Regarding (d), the proposal is evaluated under the Housing/Clear <br />and Objective standards and thereby meets the environmental, safety and land use goals of the <br />City. Regarding (e), the Goal 5 stream is shown on the site plan and is a protected resource with <br />a 40-foot setback from top of bank. Protection of the stream and changes to the wetlands on- <br />Page 6 of 87