Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews 53 McDermott Avenue re-subdivision; conservation set‑aside and stormwater basin discussed
Summary
Commission reviewed a proposed commercial re-subdivision at 53 McDermott Avenue that would require a 20% conservation set-aside (land or value); members discussed protecting a wooded buffer adjacent to city-owned Red Mountain Trail land and raised concerns about the owner offering a stormwater basin as the conservation parcel.
The Conservation Commission reviewed a Planning & Zoning referral on a proposed re-subdivision of a 2.41-acre commercial parcel at 53 McDermott Avenue, a property containing a cannabis retail facility, a restaurant and other commercial uses. Commissioners were asked to comment on the conservation set-aside that accompanies commercial subdivisions under local rules.
Staff described the parcel and sketched two potential conservation approaches: (1) a wooded hillside buffer adjacent to city-owned land and the Red Mountain Trail route, or (2) a low-lying area that currently functions as stormwater infrastructure, including a partially daylighted stream and an on-site retention basin. The commission noted that municipal guidance requires a conservation set-aside equal to 20% of either the land area or its value; the applicant reportedly proposed splitting the requirement, offering 12% in value to the conservation fund and approximately 7% as an easement or fee interest in land.
Members expressed concern about accepting the stormwater basin as conservation land. Commissioners recorded that the basin is degraded — pipes are partially crushed, vegetation and trees are growing in and around it, and the basin requires maintenance for stormwater conveyance. Several members said a basin that requires frequent clearing and repair offers little conservation value because the owner would still be required to perform maintenance; any easement would likely need specific basin-management best practices to make it meaningful for ecology. By contrast, the wooded hillside buffer adjacent to city property and the Red Mountain Trail was described as a potentially higher-value conservation parcel because it would provide screening for trail users and preserve contiguous forest habitat.
Commissioners also noted that the applicant’s “value” option (20% of the property value conveyed as funds to the conservation account) could yield funds the commission could use to purchase other land, but that money does not equate to preserving this specific parcel. Members agreed they would review any formal application and provide comment to Planning & Zoning with alternatives and suggested conditions (for example, requiring boulders or buffer plantings to prevent plowing or grading into conserved areas). The applicant was not present; commissioners expect an engineer to present at the commission’s February meeting and planned to provide formal comments then.
No formal vote was taken at this meeting; staff asked commissioners to visit the site and prepare comments for submission to Planning & Zoning prior to the public hearing process.
