1990/01/17 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

January 17,1990 14 In May of 1988, the city received an application for the of the 94.5 acres from R-W,Single Family Suburban Residential and R-1, single Family Law Density concomitant etract and eppfovCl LOP Densityaphas Multiple Family with c n con ons[ c[on of a 1,392 master apartment co site Oplan EIS wasow the preparedf orthe r proposal. unit ent pelt. EIS reviewed.Pine alternative EIS, development proposals for the site¢ �;. After,39p to a of the EIS, the applicants proposal w revised from 1,392 to a 1,284 unit multiple-family proposal(13.58 units per U. gross area). Planning Commission held a workshop and three public hearings on the proposal. In response to Planning Commission's request, during the hearing process,the applicant net with the CARE Neighbornood group and submitted two revised alternative ProPosals,each 1 128 units.. At the October 17,1989 public hearing,Planning Commission voted to approve a revised proposal at a total of 1,070 units(11.3 units per gross acre),which included a single family plat. The Planning Commission recommends the rezone of the 94.5 acres.from for the Merrill CreekOMulti-Family idevelopment FamilLwithethe t conditions¢contained in the attached concomitant agreement should be granted. The conditions would provide master plan approval of a 1,070 unit proposal consisting of 47 single family lots,62 townhouse units and 961 multiple family units. The first part of the its ract describes w the processes to be followed issuingbuilding perm s basically it will he required these will be phased reviews,Phase 1, 2, 3 and 4 and whenever these phases c in for building permits, they would be required to go through.a detailed SEP- review with notices provided to the neighborhood. A subdivision will fbe required for the single-family plat and possibly for each of the other phases through the hearing examines €., and final approval by council. ' She then reviewed landscaping requirements, tree preservation, i. buffers,preservation of environmentallyntnslive area erati .f id sidewalks, eregatio trail, requirements for off-site traffic impacts, and mitigation fees to the Nuki^teo School District. > She said council could approve the roeand concomitant.gem nt as provided. The rezone and concomitant agreement could b approved with visions. The rezone could be denied based upon findings and conclusions made by council. The matter could beder Council d back to PlacounningkeCommisssuch other actionsforthey ther econsideration find ncons � Nark eelsean, representing as the applicant, said they have been w rking an this for over two years. This project has changed from a single apartment project to mixed use housing project. It has changed because the applicants direction was clear. He wanted to use the design team's skills and the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission's direction to make the project the best neighbor it could be and the best site pl n it co 1bbe. They had listened to these directions,including input from the neighborhood. Substantial changes wered P 200 ft. buffer along the north propertyy line proposed toprotect the adjacent residents. A ". omele 5,0001 sq.plat tft. lots.as 1961 ned othree story lmulti-familyt unitewewith lotre and n proposed and the balance weretwo story townhouses.recreation There is a tand4fic and traffic problemsan will sbe mdealt gned with a prior to M1 ny work on [all to w a of site. i •i k