Laserfiche WebLink
P44 <br /> <br />generally located on Sunfish Lake Boulevard and [ 53rd Lane NW. There are a total of five <br />existing homes on the subject property; four will remain after development. As proposed, the <br />plat will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the subject property's land use <br />desig-nation from Rural Developing to Low Density Residential. All the proposed lots meet <br />urban single-family standards for lot width, size, and frontage on a public road. There are <br />substantial wetlands on the proposed plat that will need to be encumbered with drainage and <br />utility easements on the final plat. The proposed plat is subject to density transition requirements <br />located in City Code, as well as the Tree Preservation ordinance. The submitted tree <br />preservation plan shows that 1,195 of 1,792 trees on the site will be preserved. Some additional <br />plantings will be required to fully meet the landscaping and density transition requirements in <br />City Code. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plat at their April 8, 2004 <br />meeting and recommended that park dedication requirements be satisfied with cash payment. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler explained the proposed plat will gain access from 153r° Lane NW and <br />Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Access will line up with the new access being created for the Alpine <br />Acres development on the east side of Sunfish Lake Boulevard. The proposal also provides for a <br />future connection to the remainder of High Point 2"~ Addition to the north and a stub street to <br />serve the lots in the southeastern portion of the plat should they redevelop in the future. The <br />proposed cul-de-sac does not exceed the 600-foot length restriction. There are several ~ading <br />and drainage items that must be corrected on the final plat. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler advised that the review letter from Anoka County notes' that residential <br />noise standards may be exceeded and that County policy prohibits the expenditure of highWay <br />funds for noise mitigation efforts. The City should consider whether to require an analysis of the <br />potential for the noise standards to be exceeded, and requiring the developer to install appropriate <br />noise mitigation measures, or whether the City wishes to adopt a policy similar to that of the <br />county to prohibit the expenditure of funds for noise mitigation measures adjacent to county <br />highways. Staff recommends the latter option. Either such a policy should be adopted prior to <br />final plat approval, or the development a~eement should contain a provision for analysis and <br />mitigation with regard to noise standards. At the April 1, 2004 meeting, the Planning <br />Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of AIpine Woods. <br /> <br />Councih-nember Kurak asked if noise mitigation was addressed with Alpine Acres. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson responded in the negative. He explained initially staff <br />did not ask for a noise analysis to be done, as they .had not seen anything from the county that <br />they would put that in their comments. He never had the vision they would have a sound wall on <br />all their county roads. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak commented because this is so close to the intersection with the stop <br />sig-nal, there should not be a big noise issue. Also, if this was not required at Alpine Acres she <br />does not know why they would require it here. She does not want to see another wall. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson advised the City could adopt a similar policy as the <br />county. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he would a~ee to adopt a policy similar to the county. He <br />questioned how this policy would be enforced. <br /> <br />City Council/April 27, 2004 <br /> Page 22 of 33 <br /> <br /> <br />