Minutes - Council - 09/26/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

compatible with the existing residences in terms of site layout and design; and 2) density transitioning is required by City Code, and keeping the existing low density pattern in the southern portion of the site and the addition of a landscape buffer will satisfy density transitioning requirements. Staff recommends keeping Lot 3, Block 1 of Haubrich Addition low density residential which, through the PUD, would accommodate a combination of single-family or detached townhomes at up to 4 units per acre. The plan, as revised, indicates 4 units per acre in this area. Mr. Trudgeon advised staff is recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential for the remainder ofthe parcels (unplatted) because: 1) that plat, as revised, allows the City to acquire some land for the re-alignment of Alpine Drive; 2) the northern portion of the site is buffered well by wetland, park, and proposed bungalow homes; and 3) medium density is a compatible land use in the northern area of the proposed development. Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated the first question before the Council is whether to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. If this is not approved the most likely scenario would be for the Council to deny the development, as it cannot happen without the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. If the Council determines to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment there should be consideration of the rezoning from R-l Single-Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the property generally located on the southwest corner of Alpine Drive and County Road 5. This is addressed in Case No.9. Following this discussion would be consideration of the preliminary plat and site plan. The most important discussion was regarding the south side of the plat. The plat shows six 80-foot wide lots in this area, which meets the minimum requirement, but is not as deep as a normal lot. Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated staff had concern with some of the architectural elevations shown, which are a little different than previously depicted. Staff is working with the developer to pin this issue down. Mr. Trudgeon indicated there was also concern expressed about school traffic. Staff took a very unscientific look at the school pickup at 4:00 p.m. over three days. It was only identified that about three cars would be picking up at that time. What was interesting was that quite a few people that live in the neighborhood walk to pick up their children. Staff recommends a sidewalk be constructed on the south side of 151 st Lane along the extent of the plat to help mitigate some of the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts that could occur. The developer has indicated they would be willing to do this. City Attorney Goodrich noted for the record the letter dated September 26, 2006 received from Mr. Bruce Malkerson representing the developer. Mayor Gamec commented this situation is similar to a previous case where a trail was included all the way to the end of the block to keep children off the streets. Councilmember Jeffrey stated all three of these cases need to be considered at once. His biggest concern is safety and traffic, along with other things. He applauds the look at including a sidewalk, which is important, but it does not mitigate the map showing this intersection with a red dot and safety concerns at a critical crash rate. Regarding the unscientific look at the school pickup, whether or not children are picked up at school is weather related. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this for many reasons. This is a nice development, but it City Council / September 26, 2006 Page 17 of39