Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated staff had concern with some of <br />the architectural elevations shown, which are a little different than previously depicted. <br />Staff is working with the developer to pin this issue down. Mr. Trudgeon indicated there <br />was also concern expressed about school traffic. Staff took a very unscientific look at the <br />school pickup at 4:00 p.m. over three days. It was only identified that about .three cars <br />would be picking up at that time. What was interesting was that quite a few people that <br />live in the neighborhood walk to pick up their children. Staff recommends a sidewalk be <br />constructed on the south side of 151 sl Lane along the extent of the plat to help mitigate <br />some of the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts that could occur. The developer has indicated <br />they would be willing to do this. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich noted for the record the letter dated September 26, 2006 received <br />from Mr. Bruce Malkerson representing the developer. . <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec commented this situation is similar to a previous case where a trail was <br />included all the way to the end of the block to keep children off the streets. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated all three of these cases need to be considered at once. His <br />biggest concern is safety and traffic, along with other things. He applauds the look at <br />including a sidewalk, which is important, but it does not mitigate the map showing this <br />intersection with a red dot and safety concerns at a critical crash rate. Regarding the <br />unscientific look at the school pickup, whether or not children are picked up at school is <br />weather related. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this for many <br />reasons. This is a nice development, but it does not belong on this corner for a variety of <br />reasons. He also has other comments, especially about the 9,000 square foot lots next to <br />a lot that would be % of an acre or one acre in size. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated he does not mind the layout of the development, and it will be an <br />improvement for the street intersection to be addressed in the 2007 CIP. He inquired <br />about including a small walkway when there technically should be a walkway going all <br />the way down to the end of the street. In regards to the lots along the southern portion of <br />the plan, he would much rather see two lots in this area instead of three. This would <br />blend in far more with this area. This area should be more complementary to the existing <br />housing towards the back. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated what he likes about this development is that he does not <br />think a single family design would be able to pull away from CR 5 and buffer it this way; <br />it would require more access to CR 5. With the townhomes they are seeing a larger <br />percentage of greenspace that is usable for the community. Also, an association run <br />development is a better protection for wetland buffering than single family homes along <br />the wetland. He appreciates the developer's generous donation of the easement to correct <br />the situation on Alpine Drive. He does not think that single family zoning fits in here <br />well because of CR 5. Rather than having Seven drives on CR 5 this allows a nice <br />development with more greenspace. The way it is planned with the bike trail and road <br />adjacent to CR 5 puts the people living here further away from CR 5 and buffers them <br /> <br />, -154- <br /> <br />