#08 - At Home Apartments Premin Plat & PUD

Home Browse Search

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPLICATION UPDATE 01.08.23 flexibilities requested by the Applicant, City staff are still suggesting that a financial contribution be made or turn lane be constructed to add to the public benefit from this development. Response: The Applicant is currently seeking additional information from City staff regarding the suggestion for financial contribution or the expectation that the Applicant be responsible for constructing a turn lane from Wildflower Drive onto 39th Street. At this point, until more comprehensive information is provided, the Applicant respectfully registers its objection to this suggestion. To provide context, the Applicant has submitted a trip generation report that underscores the minimal impact of the additional 48 housing units on existing traffic conditions. Notably, the two parcels that make up the Applicant’s proposal were explicitly designed for mixed-used development in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and associated zoning code. Housing, a permitted use under the Village Mixed Use zoning designation, allows for a housing density range of 5 to 12 units per acre. Importantly, the Applicant’s proposed development falls at the lower end of this density range (6 units per acre), consistent with the City’s code. When the City staff, the Planning Commission, City Council and other stakeholders collaboratively drafted, approved and adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, it was a signal that this area was intended for development in various forms – commercial, housing, business, etc. Housing, as the least intrusive in terms of traffic impacts, aligns with this vision. It is crucial to note that public infrastructure forecasting would presumably have been conducted to ensure that the approved uses, whether commercial, business or residential, did not unduly burden existing systems. Consequently, the financial responsibility for correcting public infrastructure should not disproportionately fall upon a single property owner. Moreover, the flexibilities sought by the Applicant, such as reducing the road width to match that of existing public streets within the neighborhood and opting for vegetative screening over fencing, are unrelated to the construction of a right turn lane on Wildflower. Linking these distinct issues creates an unfair conflation. Had the Applicant sought flexibility on density beyond what was already approved for this area, then a request for the Applicant to contribute to future infrastructure needs might be more understandable. However, in this case, such a connection is not applicable. The Applicant appreciates the ongoing dialogue and collaboration with the City and hopes that further discussions will lead to a resolution that considers both the property development and the boarder community needs. Comment 4: Screening - In discussion with the City’s Landscape Architect, it sounded like we can review the proposal to revise the screening if we have the elevations and cross sections that are required for review. It may be difficult to meet the City’s requirement for opacity with only vegetative screening. However, if a deviation to screening is ultimately requested, staff may be