City Planning Staff Report on the Proposed 7th Street NW Development

While the Planning Staff Report stops short of making an explicit recommendation to the Planning Commission, and while it seems to favor the developers in many cases, it also raises some points that should give the Commission pause. 

Density of the Proposed Development

By the Planning Staff’s own assessment, the proposed project is anywhere from 2 to 6 times the density of nearby existing development. Technically, the project falls within the allowable density for attached single family housing for our zoning district. The developer is planning to build 6.1 dwelling units per acre; the zoning ordinance allows up to 12.4 units per acre. 

However, even the Planning staff question whether “the proposed residential density is appropriate based on the existing built environment.” 

This is where Adam Rogalski’s own words to the City Commission last fall are so relevant: “Just because you’re allowed to develop something doesn’t mean you should develop the maximum amount of what’s allowed.” 

Wetland Buffer and City Code

The Planning Staff Report notes that “a significant portion of the development…encroach[es] on the 75-foot protection area” required by City Code. 

It also notes that even if the buffer is reduced to 25 feet, “Building 8 and a southwesterly area of the cul-de-sac are proposed to be constructed at the…protection area edge.”

In other words, Rogalski is trying to step as close to the line (assuming a 25-foot buffer is approved) without actually crossing it. That is not preserving site landscape features to the maximum extent possible, as required by City Code when seeking a reduction to the protective buffer. 

Planning staff seem to agree, noting in their report, “The Planning Commission should consider whether the site layout meets the criteria for reduction of the natural features protection area from 75 feet to 25 feet from the edge of the wetlands.”

Erosion Along Fairfield NW

The Planning Staff Report mentions the “steep slopes” on the southwestern edge of the lot, but says nothing about the erosion issues reported by residents living on Fairfield. 

Their claim that the slopes “will not be disturbed” by the development is not credible, given the existing problems likely caused by groundwater. This is a serious oversight on the part of the Planning Staff Report. 

Tree Removal on the 7th Street Lot

The Planning Staff Report indicates 214 trees are to be removed. That is slightly lower than the number indicated in the Tree Survey, but the discrepancy is not large enough to be a point of contention. 

According to their assessment, nearly half of the trees to be removed are desirable species—and more than half of those are in good condition.

The Planning Staff Report casts doubt on whether all reasonable measures have been taken “to avoid unnecessary removal of existing trees.” We concur.

Neighborhood Traffic Issues 

The Planning Staff Report repeats the findings of the Trip Generation Report without commenting one way or the other. 

Elsewhere, however, they note that Link Residential Streets—such as 7th and Oakleigh—are supposed to “emphasize pedestrians, bicyclists, and local area vehicle travel.” Their report also indicates land use along these streets should be “predominantly low-to-moderate density” and “commonly the location of parks, schools, or houses of worship.” 

There is no way anyone can possibly claim streets like 7th and Oakliegh “emphasize pedestrians.” By the City’s own standard, there is no justification for making us wait several more years for the possibility of sidewalks or traffic calming measures. 

Parking Concerns 

The Planning Staff Report notes that a development like this must have a minimum of 56 parking spaces. Rogalski claims his development will have 75 spaces.

However, neither his proposal nor the Planning Staff Report account for the fact that many of the garages (which are considered one parking space each) will likely be used for storage, given the lack of basements. This could reduce considerably the actual number of parking spaces available in this development. 

Engineering Issues

The City Engineering staff identified a number of problems with the proposal:

• Inadequate soil cover for the pipe connecting building #8 to the public sewer system, which could cause grading problems.

• A required private utilities easement is missing, indicating the developers have not accounted for the accommodation of both private and public utilities.

• Six buildings (buildings 10-16) are too close to the steep slope of the stormwater basin, which could compromise the building foundations.   

Stormwater Management

The City Planning Report acknowledges the presence of “high seasonal groundwater,” noting that additional, detailed assessment will be necessary before any construction. 

Zoning Issues

The City Planning Report acknowledges that our zoning designation (MCN-LDR) “is intended to protect the established development pattern, consisting predominantly of low-density residential development” and that “new development and building renovation shall be compatible with the valued characteristics of the existing built environment.”

The proposed development meets neither of these requirements.