Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Cook stated what he likes about this development is that he does not think a <br />single family design would be able to pull away from CR 5 and buffer it this way; it would <br />require more access to CR 5. With the townhomes they are seeing a larger percentage of <br />greenspace that is usable for the community. Also, an association run development is a better <br />protection for wetland buffering than single family homes along the wetland. He appreciates the <br />developer's generous donation of the easement to correct the situation on Alpine Drive. He does <br />not think that single family zoning fits in here well because of CR 5. Rather than having seven <br />drives on CR 5 this allows a nice development with more greenspace. The way it is planned <br />with the bike trail and road adjacent to CR 5 puts the people living here further away from CR 5 <br />and buffers them from a busy highway. He agrees with the Mayor that it seems tight in the area <br />with the homes in the southern portion of the plan, but the plan started out at a much higher <br />density and looks much nicer than where it started. He does not know how they could do better <br />on this property. He questioned how to vote on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment due to the <br />possibility of something other than what is presented in this plan if it were not to be approved. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated the Council would likely want to approve <br />this Comprehensive Plan Amendment contingent on this development being approved. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated this plan is for 51 units on something that is currently zoned R-l, <br />and this plan is dependent on a rezoning. He agrees this would not work in an R -1 situation, but <br />to him that is not a compelling reason to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He would like to see <br />the R -1 plan that was sketched at one point. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen commented there was a note in the letter received from Mr. <br />Malkerson about R-l not being a viable option. She would be curious to look at the R-l sketch <br />plan as well. The other issue is the major public spine through the development where it is <br />parallel to Nowthen Boulevard. There is some tree and shrub screening planned, but she has <br />concerns about confusion caused by headlights shining at night with these roads so close. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson stated he likes this concept. The thing he does not like is the six houses <br />along 151 st Lane; if two of them were removed it would fit a little better. He likes the extra open <br />space. He has toured different housing setups like this. People do not seem to want to maintain <br />their yards anymore, and they might as well put the open space where everyone can enjoy it. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec asked how far CR 5 would be from the trail, and whether there would be enough <br />room to include additional screening or buffering. <br /> <br />Mr. Bruce Chalupsky, IHP Corp., representing the applicant, explained the first issue is the <br />screening from the headlights with the road parallel with Nowthen Boulevard. The advantage is <br />that the trees in this area are mature existing trees, and many of them are evergreens so their <br />branches go all the way down to the ground. To move the trail over they would need to remove <br />those existing trees. He explained there is a sidewalk running through the plan, and they could <br />take the trail off the right-of-way and direct it through the neighborhood. Regarding the second <br />issue of the original sketch with a single family development according to current zoning <br />standards, zoning would allow 33 lots, but due to ponding and right-of-way requirements they <br /> <br />City Council / September 26, 2006 <br />Page 18 of 38 <br /> <br />P38 <br />