Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MARCH 21, 2017 <br />lot size and side yard setback requirements. Buesing stated his concern <br />was how close the homes would be to each other, and asked how it could <br />be allowed. The City Planner explained that the property would have to be <br />rezoned to Planned Unit Development in order to have the flexibility to <br />allow the variations from the City Code. <br />Buesing asked if twin homes could be a better option. The City Planner <br />stated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would have to be done in <br />order to allow townhomes. Dave Nash, Alliant Engineering, stated that due <br />to the slope of the land, the lots must be stepped with retaining walls and it <br />would not work with larger twin home buildings. Sandell asked if the <br />project was off the table if they are not allowed 17 lots. Dan Lincoln, The <br />Lincoln Group, stated that this property is not developable without more <br />lots because of the higher land preparation costs. He explained that this <br />will be the case for anyone who tries to develop this property. <br />Schletty-Flores stated that she understands what the developer is saying, <br />but her concern is the precedent that could be set by allowing smaller lots <br />for this project. She asked if there were long-term deterioration concerns <br />for the compacted soils. Mr. Nash stated they have to meet engineering <br />standards to ensure that the soils are stable enough for roads and structures, <br />so there are no concerns for the soil to deteriorate in the future. Buesing <br />asked if some of the lots would still meet the square footage requirements. <br />The City Planner stated that the lots on the east side of the street are very <br />deep and larger than required. Buesing asked Mr. Nash if they could <br />remove one lot from each side of the street in order to space the houses out <br />more. Mr. Nash stated they would need to remove at least a couple of lots <br />from each side in order to be able to make much of a difference in the <br />spacing between the homes. <br />Beltmann stated that she understands the reasons why the number of lots <br />was increased, but has concerns about this amount of density for this <br />neighborhood, and the increase in traffic as a result on Labore Road. Mr. <br />Lincoln stated that the residents who will likely be living here are empty <br />nesters, and may even be gone for months at a time. Davison stated that he <br />calculated the traffic numbers for what this amount of development would <br />add, and it was only a modest increase. Sandell stated that maybe the <br />empty nesters that this development is targeting are not the families with <br />children that the City may actually want in this neighborhood. Davison <br />stated that currently traffic on Labore Road in this area is 2,200 trips per <br />day, which is a very modest number. He noted that he is not worried about <br />traffic increases, but is not sure about changing the property from R-1, <br />Single Family Residential, unless the rest of the Commission supported <br />that. Buesing asked if the end lots could be pushed out in order to space <br />-2- <br />