Laserfiche WebLink
<br />reconfigured, there is a possibility of a median being installed;in which case it would be a right- <br />in, right-out at Skyline. The result of that would probably increase traffic south to 151 st. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cleveland inquired if turn lanes would be required on County Road #5 and City <br />Engineer J ankow:ski replied that even though 151 st and County Road #5 is an existing <br />intersection, thti County could still require turn lanes. <br /> <br />Bruce - Bolton and Menk - Stated that he would anticipate that the County would require turn <br />lanes when the permanent access from the new subdivision, Meadow, on the east side of #5 is <br />reworked to align with 151 st on the west side of#5. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that one of the noted concerns of City Council was that a single access is <br />not adequate. A second access has been created but it will not take away as much of the traffic <br />from 151 st as anticipated. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes noted that one single family home generates more vehicle trips per day <br />than one townhome. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding the Haubrich parcel. Ms. DaInes stated that the property will <br />accommodate 6 single family units on 151 st; that reduces the units from 59 to 53, which equates <br />to a density of 4.8 units per acre overall. <br /> <br />. Chairperson Nixt stated that he feels Council has given clear direction that the Haubrich parcel <br />should be developed with single family homes along 151 st and in the southwest comer. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine questioned whether there is any gain on the traffic concern if some of the <br />units are changed to single family as single family generates more traffic than townhomes. <br /> <br />Larry Hillard - Developer- Stated it is important to look at the big issue in terms of traffic. On <br />a scale from A to D, the traffic report for Sklyine was a B; which means the study is favorable to <br />the development. If some of the townhomes are changed to single family, the traffic issue will <br />not change. He stated that they have repeatedly implement changes recommended by Council, <br />Commission and Staff and still everyone cannot seem to get on the same page. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that the density issue is as big as the traffic issue. There are means to <br />control traffic; the density issue has been addressed a number of times and it has been stated that <br />there needs to be single family adjacent to the existing single family west of the Haubrich parcel <br />and push the density to the center of the plat. <br /> <br />Breanne DaInes stated that with respect to R-l at 3 units per acre or as a R-l PUD at 4 units per <br />acre, Council did not specify. She is interpreting Councils comments as they will consider a <br />PUD if it is designed to start out with single family adjacent to single family and increase density <br />as the plat goes north. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/July 10, 2006 <br />Page 8 of 14 <br /> <br />P8 <br />