Laserfiche WebLink
<br />properties to the north and prepared purchase agreements equivalent to the appraised value for <br />the parcels. The offers were declined; <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated the applicant is proposing 7 detached <br />townhomes. The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential, which allows up to 7 units <br />per acre. The overall density of the project is 4.:1 units per acre. Because detached"tov,7JJhomes <br />were not defined in City Code when the preliminary plat was considered, a POO rezoning was <br />processed and approved for this site. The units are a mix of single-level and two-level homes. <br />Detailed building elevations have been submitted and are included in the. packet. Ms. Frolik <br />stated one of the comments in the Staff Review Letter, revised June 23, 2006, noted that any City <br />approvals are contingent upon addressing the access and traffic concerns of the County. <br />However, the County failed to submit comments regarding this plat until May 7,2007. In thi"s <br />letter, the County outlines its standard concerns with developments proposing access onto a <br />County Road. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated this site is.challenged, with no alternative accesses except via the County Road <br />at this time. The proposed development adds 7 additional homes on the existing single-family <br />access and increases the number of vehicles on County Road 5. However, seeing no viable <br />alternative for gaining access to the site, the County has agreed to pen nit access onto the County <br />Road with the contingency that if others to the n<j)rth develop, the properties \vill gain their access <br />through the GAD's Prairie development and all existing accesses will be removed. The applicant <br />has complied with City Council requirements to make a valid attempt to develop the properties <br />as one project and has revised the plat to accommodate a full cul-de-sac on his property. <br />Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the final plat; contingent upon the City Staff <br />Revie\v Letter dated May 18, 2007 and the Developer entering into a Development Agreement <br />that specifically requires the elinlination of the County Road access at such a time that the <br />temporary cul-de-sac is extended to connect to 146th Avenue. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec pointed out that there has been a lot of work with this. This developer has done a <br />lot, and the Council asked the developer to work with the other developers. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he is still struggling with the civic responsibility. There will be :the <br />same number of cars on the street on County Road 5; that is not an issue. The issue is where the <br />cars will get on and off and hO\v many accesses there are. He still struggles with the civic <br />responsibility of whether this is okay at this time. The developer has done a good job and staff <br />has worked to get people in the room at the same time with knowledge of costs and <br />opportunities, which he believes was a good solid move. They are at a dead end but he still <br />struggles with the responsibility and what the safety hazard may imply. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated his position has not changed on this. The safety of this is <br />probably his number one concern. Yesterday he was going down County Road 5 and turned on <br />his right blinker to turn right on 146th" A car in front of him turned left on 146th and a car <br />decided to pass them both on the right. He stated there is a bypass lane on the street prior to this <br />entrance. He does not think it is safe for cars t<;> be dumping onto County Road 5. The product <br />looks fine, his concern relates to safety. <br /> <br />City Council / August 14,2007 <br />Page 10 of 32 <br /> <br />P26 <br />