Agenda - Council - 09/11/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the proposed preliminary plat (Option C) on July 12. A great deal of discussion took place regarding the traffic generation analysis. The Planning Commission tabled any action on the preliminary plat and requested that the developer meet with City Staff to develop some alternative street layout designs (and related traffic numbers). The alternative street designs should look at ways to discourage the new traffic from travelling through adjacent neighborhoods to reach collector and arterial streets. Staff met with the developers and developed a street layout that will be referred to as Option A. In this Option A, Waco Street will terminate in a cul-de-sac on the north side of Alpine Drive (153rd) tO avoid people travelling on Waco, south of ,,-,ra ~ao , to get to the signalized intersection at 149th' The two southwesterly cul-de-sacs were connected as a through street to provide a main street spine through the neighborhood and replace the access lost on 153rd by the cul-de-sacing of Waco. A 90 degree intersection was created to connect 155th Lane to the main spine of the development rather than having the main spine funnel directly into 155th and the neighborhood to the west. Yakima, Waco and Ute would be constructed as through streets. Option B is the same as Option A except that Ute would not be constructed as a through street. Option C, the version subjected to the public hearing on July 12, includes Yakima, Waco and Ute Street as a through streets. Option D is Option C without Ute Street as a through street. The traffic generation analysis reflects that Options B and D will not increase traffic on either of the remaining street connections. The Planning Commission reviewed Options A, B, C and D, and the revised traffic analysis on August 7. They recommended that the City Council approve Option B. Following the motion, a resident inquired if the Planning Commission saw his proposed street layout, design that was forwarded to Centex for consideration. Staff could not recall seeing Mr. Westrum s street alignment proposal. Mr. Westrum was directed to provide city staff with copies of his proposal for inclusion in the council agenda for further consideration. The alternatives presented by Mr. Westrum are referenced as options I, 2 and 3 in the enclosures. The City Staff review letter provides comments on these alternatives. Per the recommendation of the Planning Commission, Preliminary Plat Option B was presented to the City Council on August 28 for approval. At that time, the City Attorney advised the City Council that an additional public hearing to receive comment on all versions of the preliminary plat under consideration might be appropriate. ,,~Council directed staff to schedule and advertise the public hearing for September Il. (Q/IL// } ~, Recommendation:' ~ ~ ~'~~ ' oval of Oplioo ~ The Planning .Commission c (3g~O' ~'o Motion to adopt Resolution #01-09-5.. g ' g p ' ' ry pla pp entex Fiomes Op- lion prepared by Westwood professional Services and dated Review Cheeldist: City Engineer Parks/Utilities Supervisor CC: 09/11/01 -110- I I I I i I I I I I I ! I I ! I I I I