Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press city planners over berm, drainage as Kensington Downs Phase 5 clears final approval
Summary
Neighbors told the Planning Commission that Kensington Downs Phase 5’s berm, grading and street stub‑outs could increase water intrusion and eliminate promised privacy. Developers and staff said the berm design includes a swale and water‑quality pond; the commission approved the final master development plan with staff conditions.
Chair Harris opened public comment before the commission took up Kensington Downs Phase 5, a final master development plan proposing 26 single‑family lots on about 6.28 acres west of Greenlee Boulevard.
Attorney Joel Stapley, representing adjoining homeowners Michelle and Pasco Pascal, asked the commission to defer action. Stapley said three issues remained unresolved: the berm as shown on the plan would sit below finished grades on the developer’s lots and therefore “defeats the purpose” of privacy; existing ponding on the northeast corner of the neighbors’ property could be worsened by the proposed grading and swales; and driveway stub‑outs appeared to extend to adjacent property lines contrary to earlier understandings. “We ask that, basically, deny the final master development plan as is,” Stapley said during public comment.
Neighbor Michelle Juvance told the commission she discovered in the posted agenda that house pads at the northeast corner would be raised, in places, roughly four feet above existing ground and would visually tower over the promised berm. She said the lowest point on her property currently ponds for days after rain and expressed concern that added roof runoff and filled pads would push more water onto her land.
At the staff presentation, Kimberly, city planning staff, reviewed the plan’s buffer commitments, including the enhanced buffer yard and berm shown on the PMDP and the developer’s preservation of existing canopy along the eastern property line. Luke Talley, representing the developer, said the berm and an interior ditch were designed to capture impervious runoff and convey it to an on‑site water‑quality pond. Talley told the commission the site’s cut‑and‑fill calculations balance on the portion near the berm and that the team did not intend to “intentionally force these houses into the air.”
Engineering staff said the department will review construction plans to verify how the roadway stub‑outs would be built in the future without permanently invading the buffer yard. Staff recommended approval with 11 conditions relating to construction plan review, utilities, stub‑out termination and landscaping.
Vice Chairman Albert moved to approve the plan with planning’s 11 conditions; Councilman Fan seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The commission’s approval is a final local planning action; the conditions require the developer to show in construction plans how future roadway extensions can be tied in and to address any engineering concerns about the berm and drainage during plan review.
