01-26-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Traffic At the City Council meeting, concerns were raised about traffic through the existing residential neighborhood to the east. Increased traffic at Livingston and Casco were a concern. The applicant has informed staff that there average vehicle trips per day for other similar developments is 3.8 trips per day. This would generate approximately 114 trips ner day. The Public Services Director has stated that typical studies show that dwelling units generate 10 trips per day for 300 trips per day. Access to County Road 15 The underlying zoning district (LR-IC; of which LR-lC-1 is a subdistrict, requires direct access to a highway. Because the proposed development does not have direct access to a highway, traffic from the development will circulate through a residential neighborhood. It would be preferable for this development to have access to County Road 15 through the property to the west. This would both limit the amount of traffic circulation through the residential neighborhood and would provide two options for emergency vehicle access. Homeowner’s Association Agreement The City Council raised concerns about reviewing the homeowner's association agreement. The applicant has provided a copy of the articles, by-laws and declaration of covenants for another development, "Kemmetmuellers Brookside Meadows". The City Attorney is reviewing this document. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The first step in the review of the PRD is to determine whether the general design and layout of the development meets the purpose of the PRD. The next step is to consider specific details of the PRD such as the width of the private road, the need for the cul-de-sac and setback. The Council needs to examine the proposed development to determine whether the general subdivision standards should apply to this PRD or def'*rmine if a departure from the general standards would be more suitable based on the purpose and goals of the PRD. The applicant is asking the City Council to review the two submitted plans to compare the plan with more trees, narrower paved roads, and the hammerhead design to the plan with fewer trees, wider road and cul-de-sac. The applicant is requesting that the Council consider the benefits of each plan to provide further direction to the developer. I