Agenda - Council - 12/11/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

properties to the north and prepared purchase agreements equivalent to .the appraised value for the parcels. The offers were declined: Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated the applicant is proposing 7 detached townhomes. The properly is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential, which allows up to 7 units per acre. The overall density of the project is 4.1 units per acre. Because detached townhomes were not defined in City Code when~the preliminary plat was considered, a PUD rezoning was processed and approved for this site. The units are a mix of single-level and two-level homes. Detailed building elevations have been submitted and are included in the packet. Ms. Frolik stated one of the comments in the Staff Review Letter; revised June 23, 2006, noted that ariy City approvals are contingent upon addressing the access and traffic concems of the County. However, the County failed to submit comments regarding this plat until May 7, 2007. In this letter, the County outlines its standard concerns with developments proposing access onto a County Road. Ms. Frolik stated this site is challenged, with no alternative accesses except via the County Road at this time. The proposed development adds 7 additional homes on the existing single-family access and increases the number of vehicles on County Road 5. However, seeing no.viable alternative for gaining access to the site, the County has agreed to permit access onto the County Road with the contingency that if others to the north develop, the properties will gain their access through the GAD's Prairie development and all existing accesses will be removed. The applicant has complied with City Council requirements to make a valid attempt to develop the properties as one project and has revised the plat to accommodate a fii11 cul-de-sac on his property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the final plat, contingent upon the City Staff Review Letter dated May 18, 2007 and the Developer entering into a Development Agreement that specifically requires the elimination of the County Road access at such a time that the temporary cul-de-sac is extended to connect to 146' Avenue. Mayor Gamec pointed out that there leas been a lot of work with this. This developer has done a lot, and. the Council asked the developer to work with the other developers. Councilmember Elvig stated he is still struggling v~~ith the civic responsibility. There will be the same number of cars on the street on County Road 5; that is not an issue. The issue is where the cars will get on and off and liow many accesses there are. He still struggles with the civic responsibility of «~hether this is okay at this time. The developer has done a good job and staff has worked to get people in the room at the same time with knowledge of costs and opportunities, which he believes was a good solid move. They are at a dead end but he still struggles with the responsibility and what the safety hazard may imply. Councilmember Jeffrey stated his. position .has not changed on this.- The safety of this is probably his number one concem. Yesterday he was going down County Road 5 and turned on his right blinker to turn right on 146~~ A car in front of him turned left on 146' and a car decided to pass them both on the right. He stated there is a bypass lane on the street prior to this entrance. He does not think it is safe for cars to be dumping onto County Road 5. The product looks fine, his concern relates to safety. . City Council /August 14, 2407 Page 10 of 32 -348-