Agenda - Council - 06/22/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

generally located on Sunfish Lake Boulevard and 153rd Lane NW. There are a total of five existing homes on the subject property; four will remain after development. As proposed, the plat will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the subject property's land use desig-nation from Rural Developing to Low Density Residential. All the proposed-lots meet urban singte-fami]y standards for lot width, size, and frontage on a public road. There are substantial wetlands on the proposed plat that will need to be encumbered'with drainage and utility easements on the final plat. The proposed plat is subject to density transition reqfiirements located in City Code, as well as the Tree Preservation ordinance. The submitted tree preservation plan shows that 1,195 of 1,792 trees on the site wi~:.b'e preserved~ Some additional plantings will be required to fully meet the landscaping anddensity transition requirements in City, Code. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plat at their April 8, 2004~, meeting and recommended that park dedication requirements be satisfied with cash payment. Associate Plmmer Geisler explained the proposed..pl~::VCill gain accegs from 15? Lane NW and Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Access will line up with the new acaess belh~: created 'for the Alpine ,Acres development on the east side of Sunfish Lake BouleVard: 'The proposal also provides for a future connection to the remainder of High Point ? Addition ~o.the north and a stub-street to serve the lots in the southeastern portion of the plat should they redevelop in the future. The proposed cul-de-sac does not exceed the 600-foot len~h restriction. There are several g-rading and draina_oe items that must be corrected on the final plat. :'~': ' ': :: 7: :.: Associate Planner Geisler advised that the revieW:letter from Anoka County' notes that residential noise standards rnay be exceeded and.that County poli'by prohibkts the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation efforts. The City should consider whether to require an analysis of the potential for the noise standards to be exceeded, and requiring the developer to install appropriate noise mitigation.measures, or whether the City wishes to adopt a policy similar to that of the county to prohibit the expenditure of funds for noise mitigation measures adjacent to county highwaYs: Staffreco~rnnends the latter option. Either such a polic, y should be adopted prior to final plat approval, or the development a~eemen~ should contain a provision for analysis and mitigation with regard to noise standards. AtIhe Apr/l. 1,.2004 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminau Plat of Alpine Woods. Councilmember Kurak asked if noise'mitigation was addressed with Alpine Acres. Assistant Public Works Director Olson responded in the negative. He explained initially staff did nOt ask for a noise analysis to be done, as they had not seen an,vthino~ from the county that they would put that in their comments. He never had the vision they would have a sound wall on ali their county roads. ~ :: Councitmember Kurak commented because this is so close to the intersection with the stop signal, there Should not be a big noise issue. Also, if this was not required at Alpine Acres she does not know why they would require it here. She does not want to see another wall, Assistant Public Works Director Olson advised the City could adopt a similar policy as the county. Councilmember E]vig stated he would a~ee to adopt a policy similar to the county. He questioned how this policy would be enforced. '278- CiD, Council/April 27, 2004 Page 22 of 33