Laserfiche WebLink
<br />with the traffic counts dumping onto 151 st Lane and Alpine Drive. He has a fundamental <br />problem putting those cars onto a cul-de-sac that is already too long to begin with. He believes <br />the Council's number one concern is safety to residents and the kids that walk to and from <br />school. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen concurred. She indicated typically they try to concentrate the higher <br />density where there is access to roads, but they are dealing with roads that have problems <br />anyways. Also, there is a huge difference with this site because there is an elementary school <br />located here, as well as hopefully preserving land for a middle school in the same area. They <br />need to pay extra attention to the safety of these roads, and she is sure if the general rule of <br />higher density along major collector roads applies in this case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey expressed concern with children needing to walk to school up 151 st Lane <br />with no sidewalks. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Jeffery to deny the preliminary plat of Skyline Pointe; Case of MN <br />Skyline Partners, LLC. <br /> <br />Motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated there are some things about this development that he likes very <br />much. He appreciates that the developer has moved back to an R-l setting on the south part of <br />this, which the Council specifically asked for. This traffic will also not dump out onto 151st <br />Lane, which is very encouraging. He likes the use of the large buildings against CR 5. <br />However, they have to consider not only what is happening here; as Councilmember Strommen <br />said this is a dysfunctional comer. Also, the City just approved a project kiddy-comer on <br />Potassium Street, and that road is dysfunctional; it seems that this will exacerbate the problem <br />regarding traffic. He suggested a work session to discuss how to address the issue of the foot <br />traffic with kids walking to school. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated he will not be standing up on either side of this issue, but he does <br />like this development. He inquired if the developer could come back with a single family <br />proposal since this property is zoned R-l. He explained the one concern he has is putting single <br />family homes right along CR 5. Secondly, the information from the developer says that 33 <br />single family units could go in instead of 56 townhomes, and the single family homes would give <br />net trips of 396 per day, rather than 392 with townhomes. He requested staff to look into this <br />information. <br /> <br />Larry Hillard, development partner of MN Skyline Partners, LLC, stated when they were here in <br />a work session previously they had not acquired the parcel to the north, and it was suggested at <br />that work session that would help to improve traffic, so they acquired that in response to <br />comments at the Planning Commission. Based on the Planning Commission discussion they <br />moved the road back as far as they could to remove any impact at that intersection. The issue <br />seems to be traffic, as brought up by the residents and the Planning Commission. He stated there <br />needs to be an understanding. It is not that they have not looked at the single family <br />development; their numbers show if they put single family development in here it will generate <br /> <br />City Council / August 8, 2006 <br />Page 14 of29 <br />