Laserfiche WebLink
Council were to adopt the ordinance. I-Ie requested that the item be moved up on the agenda so <br />that the residents are aware of the discussion. Nh:. Johnson inquired if the City Attorney found <br />the proposed findings of fact appropriate. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied yes, but suggested the Commission include information on traffic <br />corlcerng. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt inqu/red what impact traffic has on rezoning the property. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that g additional traffic would have an adverse impact on the area <br />and the City was not equipped to handle that traffic it would be a basis for denial. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt inquired as to what T.H. #47 upgrades would do For handling the increased <br />traffic from the development. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowsld replied that the critical movement that would come out of the <br />development would be left tums omo T.H. g47. In 1998 the predominant movement was left <br />turns From 153"~ Avenue to T.H. #47 with 2.25 cars arriving on the minute during peak hours. <br />With the improvements there will be a left mm lane on westbound 153rd Avenue, that would <br />accommodate 13 cars which should be able to handle ei~t times the e,,dsting traffic. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt questioned based on the rough traffic analysis it would not overly flood the <br />intersection. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that was correct. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak questioned the statement regarding two addresses being assigned to <br />each one acre lot. <br /> <br />CommuniU Development Director Frolik explained that on the large lots the building official did <br />assign two addresses. She also noted that language in City Code does indicate that a home <br />should be built to one side of the lot so as to not prohibit subdivision of We property. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Ni~, to recommend that City <br />Council adopt Findings of Fact relating to a request from Reitley Estates Partnership to rezone <br />certain property from R~l Rural Residential to R-1 Urban Residential. <br /> <br />Further discussion: The findings of fact should be amended as follows: <br /> <br />· #12 should include the following language "The said concept plan is not in conformance with <br /> the City's current performance standards for urban development." <br /> <br />Planning Commission/July 10, 2000 <br /> Page'gl 1~! ~2 <br /> <br /> <br />