Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Riley acknowledged the comment that the existing residents stated that they <br /> would want the Alpha property to remain low density and would not oppose higher density on <br /> the Northfork parcel. He asked if the property owners simply did not want higher density in <br /> "their backyards". <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill noted that comment was not made but noted that it <br /> was commented that there seemed to be more of a natural buffer to allow for the transitioning <br /> adjacent to the Northfork parcel. <br /> Alan Roessler, on behalf of the applicant, stated that the driver is that Capstone pushed the high- <br /> density portion of their site to the northeast which is adjacent to their property. He stated that <br /> they would like similar buffering and therefore feel that it would be appropriate for their parcel <br /> to transition from low density, to medium density, to the Capstone higher density. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill stated that there are different levels of density <br /> transitioning and required buffering with City Code. He explained that the ordinance that <br /> requires buffering applies to when new development abuts existing residential development. He <br /> stated that if the Council would like to accept the full proposal, it would be in the purview of the <br /> Council to do so. <br /> Councilmember Riley asked if there is a conceptual layout available. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill responded there is not a visual component and <br /> confirmed that a conceptual layout could be requested. <br /> Councilmember Shryock referenced the thought process of the Planning Commission and asked <br /> the main concern with splitting the lot and not allowing higher density on the Alpha lot. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill replied that one of the primary concerns was traffic <br /> in general and the character of the area, with the desire for a more natural density transitioning. <br /> He stated that while character is hard to define, traffic increase is measurable. <br /> Councilmember Shryock stated that Alpine exceeds the width required for a buffer and asked if <br /> it would be similar for Puma, if that is the buffer between Alpha and the properties to the west. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill confirmed that Puma would be an adequate buffer <br /> width but noted that is not the area of concern for the buffer. <br /> Councilmember Riley stated that the concern with traffic seems inconsistent, as the neighboring <br /> parcel would change from rural to medium density. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill confirmed that comment was made. He noted that <br /> the overall site was looked at holistically and the compromise reached through consensus. He <br /> noted that traffic counts would remain a focus. <br /> City Council/August 28,2018 <br /> Page 17 of 23 <br />