Laserfiche WebLink
1. Alternative Action 2a: The Planning Commission recommends that the City not close the existing access to <br />Nowthen Boulevard. This alternative would then make it the policy of the City Council to close the access. <br />The proposed Plat would NOT need to be modified in this alternative amending the Planning Commission <br />recommendation. <br />2. Alternative Action 2b: The Planning Commission recommends that the proposed development modify the <br />northern exterior development boundary as illustrated in the attached document highlighted in red. This <br />proposed plat would NOT need to be modified in this alternative amending the Planning Commission <br />recommendation. <br />3. Alternative Action 2c: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City not include a City <br />park within the proposed development. This alternative would then make it the policy of the City Council to <br />include a City park within the proposed development. <br />This alternative would require that the proposed development be modified before submitting Preliminary Plat. <br />Regarding the access to Nowthen Boulevard, retaining this access would reduce the project pro -forma and in Staff s <br />interpretation, would have limited benefit compared to the costs of the required improvements. Regarding a <br />potential park within the proposed development, addition of a park in this area would reduce resources available for <br />other future improvements already planned and would add to the City's ongoing maintenance costs. The Parks and <br />Recreation Commission feels there are adequate parks, recreation, and open spaces available to the proposed <br />development within reasonable distance. <br />The City Council has the ability to choose either Alternative #1 or Alternative #2, as this is a policy discussion of <br />the City Council. Both are legally acceptable alternatives and are supported by Staff. Both alternatives do, however, <br />have significantly different cost implications. <br />Alternative #3. Do not direct the Applicant to prepare a Preliminary Plat and completely redesign the Plat. Staff <br />does not recommend this option, as it appears that the concept of a residential redevelopment and current layout is <br />generally supported by the community, with just a few key topics left to address on a policy level. <br />Timeframe: <br />30 Minutes. <br />Funding Source: <br />All costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Applicant. <br />The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for required infrastructure costs and development fees required to <br />serve the development. <br />This project is subject to a Purchase Agreement between the City and N.I.K. Management, as the Subject Property <br />is currently owned by the City. Infrastructure costs have the potential to impact the net revenue of the project <br />pro -forma. <br />Responsible Party(ies): <br />Community Development Director <br />Outcome: <br />Staff desires consensus of the City Council to confirm or not confirm the recommendations regarding 1) Nowthen <br />Boulevard Access, 2) Exterior Development Boundary, and 3) Park and Trail Plan for the proposed development. <br />Attachments <br />Site Location Map <br />Sketch Plan <br />Tentative Review Schedule <br />