Agenda - Council - 04/22/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I Mr. Anderson, 16960 Nutria Street, stated he is opposed to the City acquiring-a portion of his property for the purpose of connecting Rabbit Street to Nutria Street. He is also opposed to the City constructing a full service road through the park. It is Mr. Anderson's opinion that the City can achieve a second access through the construction of a pedestrian pathway through the park and connecting to Nutria Street. Mr. Anderson also stated he is opposed to a cluster development on the subject property. He indicated that the area consists of large lot developments (2 - 5 acre parcels) and urban size lots would not be compatible to the area. Devin Diedrich, 16911 Tiger Street, stated he moved to the area because he likes it quiet. Tiger Street and Armstrong Blvd. currently abut his property and he is inquiring whether or not 170th Avenue could be realigned so three streets do not surround his property. Dan Floria, 16955 Nutria Street, stated 168th Street seems to be an area where people speed and if the City constructed a road through the park this would only add to the problem. Recommendation: After considerable discussion regarding the layout of the sketch plan and street connection issue, the consensus of the Planning Commission was the City should not acquire a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Autumn Meadows for the purposes of connecting Rabbit Street to Nutria Street?Instead staff should work with the City Attorney 'to determine if the City can vacate a portion of the parkland to allow for a public street connection with Nutria Street via the park property. In regard to Mr. Diedrich's property potentially being surrounded by three streets, the Planning Commission sympathized with Mr. Diedrich, however due to the large pond located north of the proposed 170th Avenue, realigning 170th Avenue may not be possible. However, the Planning Commission directed staff and the developer to explore any viable option to reconfigur~ 170th Avenue. The Planning Commission granted sketch plan approval based on current Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision regulations and recommended the developer proceed to preliminary plat. The Planning Commission suggested the City Council direct staff to work on providing cluster development provisions into the Comprehensive Plan and City Code as a separate case. City Code states that the Planning Commission can approve or deny a sketch plan and it is the applicant's option to bring the sketch plan forward to the City Council for their review. Due to the cluster development discussions that occurred during the City Council work session on April 1, 2003, the applicant, Brad Fritch, decided the City Council should review the sketch plan for further comment. The developer is requesting to proceed with the sketch plan proposing to plat 11 new single- family rural lots (2.5 acres) and one existing homestead. City Code and the Comprehensive Plan currently designate this area for 2.5-acre development and the applicant would like to be reviewed under current zoning standards. However, knowing that the City Council is interested in approving developments that can provide for orderly re-subdivision, the applicant has submitted a re-subdivision plan showing how the property could be platted in the event City services are extended to the area. Brad Fritch is agreeable to referencing the re-subdivision plan in the Development Agreement and possibly providing language restricting principal dwellings and accessory structures from being constructed in areas that may cause difficulty for future re- subdivision. -237-