Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the developer had a proposal that would eliminate one of the <br />cul-de-sacs. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik presented some sketch plan alternates, which included <br />cul-de-sacing Waco Street and Yakima Street <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the traffic consultants opinion if those through streets were <br />cul-de-sacs. <br /> <br />Mr. Corkle replied that if those roads were to be cul-de-sacs the trips would have to be re-routed <br />in some way. He would have to study the impact on the overall traffic of the development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated that it would appear that they could close Waco Street to the north <br />without a lot of impact on traffic, but to cul-de-sac Ute street would re-route 140 trips and that <br />would have a greater impact. <br /> <br />Mr. Corkle replied that the 140 trips would probably go to 155th Lane or Waco Street to the <br />south. <br /> <br />Mr. Blake stated that there are several different drawings that show different road conditions with <br />some of the alignments resolving some of the concerns expressed by the residents. He stated that <br />he thought it was their objective to meet the standards of the City, but they are willing to work <br />with the Commission, Council and residents. Most of the cul-de-sacs to the north could be <br />eliminated, but needs someone to make the decision as to which ones. He presented different <br />options to the Commission. In regards to additional park strips and bike path in the area of Ute <br />Street, the Park Commission did not feel that would be a wise use, but they could look at the <br />issue again. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that when there is a 2.5 acre parcel adjacent to a density of 3.3 units per <br />acre, he would find it reasonable to have some type of buffer. <br /> <br />Mr. Blake noted that the proposed density for the development is 2.0 units per acres. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt noted that he was referring to only the portion of the development located by <br />Ute Street. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sweet stated that on one property they will have 8 parcels adjacent to their <br />property. The developer has been accommodating to the property owners to the north, but why <br />has no one approached the other property owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Blake replied that he is not opposed to discussing the issue with other property owners, but <br />at some point it has to stop. The property has been under review long before Centex became <br />involved. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/July 12, 2001 <br /> Page 16 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />