Agenda - Council - 09/25/2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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