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

Home

does not belong on this corner for a variety of reasons. He also has other comments, especially about the 9,000 square foot lots next to a lot that would be % of an acre or one acre in size. Mayor Gamec stated he does not mind the layout of the development, and it will be an improvement for the street intersection to be addressed in the 2007 CIP. He inquired about including a small walkway when there technically should be a walkway going all the way down to the end of the street. In regards to the lots along the southern portion of the plan, he would much rather see two lots in this area instead of three. This would blend in far more with this area. This area should be more complementary to the existing housing towards the back. Councilmember Cook stated what he likes about this development is that he does not think a single family design would be able to pull away from CR 5 and buffer it this way; it would require more access to CR 5. With the townhomes they are seeing a larger percentage of greenspace that is usable for the community. Also, an association run development is a better protection for wetland buffering than single family homes along the wetland. He appreciates the developer's generous donation of the easement to correct the situation on Alpine Drive. He does not think that single family zoning fits in here well because of CR 5. Rather than having seven drives on CR 5 this allows a nice development with more greenspace. The way it is planned with the bike trail and road adjacent to CR 5 puts the people living here further away from CR 5 and buffers them from a busy highway. He agrees with the Mayor that it seems tight in the area with the homes in the southern portion of the plan, but the plan started out at a much higher density and looks much nicer than where it started. He does not know how they could do better on this property. He questioned how to vote on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment due to the possibility of something other than what is presented in this plan if it were not to be approved. Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated the Council would likely want to approve this Comprehensive Plan Amendment contingent on this development being approved. Councilmember Jeffrey stated this plan is for 51 units on something that is currently zoned R-l, and this plan is dependent on a rezoning. He agrees this would not work in an R-l situation, but to him that is not a compelling reason to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He would like to see the R-l plan that was sketched at one point. Councilmember Strommen commented there was a note in the letter received from Mr. Malkerson about R-l not being a viable option. She would be curious to look at the R-l sketch plan as well. The other issue is the major public spine through the development where it is parallel to Nowthen Boulevard. There is some tree and shrub screening planned, but she has concerns about confusion caused by headlights shining at night with these roads so close. Councilmember Pearson stated he likes this concept. The thing he does not like is the six houses along 151 st Lane; if two of them were removed it would fit a little better. He likes the extra open space. He has toured different housing setups like this. People do not seem to want to maintain their yards anymore, and they might as well put the open space where everyone can enjoy it. Mayor Gamec asked how far CR 5 would be from the trail, and whether there would be enough room to include additional screening or buffering. City Council / September 26, 2006 Page 18 of 39