07-06-2015 Council Work Session Minutes

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 6, 2015 APPROVED 135 The council heard about right-of-way discussions underway with impacted property 136 owners. It was also noted that, with a new drainage plan, the current ditch system 137 wouldn't be needed any longer and could be abandoned. Council Member Stoesz noted 138 that he isn't comfortable with moving ahead with the feasibility study (costs) without 139 knowing that the land will be available. Community Development Director Grochala 140 explained that the infoimation provided in a feasibility study would be very helpful in 141 providing facts. 142 143 Staff will report again on the project at the next work session. 144 145 4. Mattamy Development Update and Discussion — Community Development Director 146 Grochala updated the council on the status of the proposed Watermark project. Rick 147 Packer, representing Mattamy Homes, was present. Mr. Grochala explained that Mr. 148 Packer did appear before the Planning and Zoning Board recently to provide information 149 on the project. The board raised three issues noted in the staff report and Mr. Grochala 150 said he would intend to review those areas with the council as the developer is beginning 151 to prepare their PUD development application. He noted that through discussion and 152 information provided, the Planning and Zoning Board was able to come away in support 153 of the development. He reviewed the concept plan layout and an analysis of what's gone 154 into planning for the area, including transportation improvements. He reviewed 155 guidance provided for the area by the Comp Plan, AUAR and PUD. He discussed the 156 matter of commercial development and that the area has been studied and researched and 157 found to not be favorable for commercial activities. He reviewed land nearby the 158 proposed development that is planned for commercial as well as the commercial 159 properties already in the area. On the matter of density, Mr. Grochala reviewed what is 160 proposed for the project and what is allowed as a maximum (proposed is lower than 161 maximum). He reviewed the front view of each proposed home style. The council 162 asked about the townhouse element and Mr. Packer explained that they would be grouped 163 by six in a row style. When asked if twin homes are proposed, Mr. Packer said there's 164 no real advantage in selling that type — people just go for the detached if it's two. When 165 Council Member Roeser asked if regional guidelines are forcing the inclusion of 166 townhomes in the development, Mr. Packer said no, the townhome portion fits well into a 167 development in areas next to something like commercial (and in this case, next to the 168 park and ride facility). 169 170 Council comments included that it appears commercial isn't viable and shouldn't be 171 forced; do not like the roundabouts; lot widths of 44 feet are not good and aren't seen in 172 other developments; some people like the idea of less maintenance that comes with a 173 smaller lot or townhouse. When asked if the development will include a community 174 center, Mr. Packer said it is pretty much expected these days and will probably be 175 something like a club house. 176 177 The council discussed planned street widths (the mayor prefers wider widths because it 178 provides greater access in and out). The council concurred that no commercial is 179 acceptable at this point but the matter of lot width needs more drill down. 4