My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.6. SR 03-17-1997
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1997
>
03/17/1997
>
6.6. SR 03-17-1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:46 AM
Creation date
7/28/2003 7:31:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/17/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/Derrick Investment Request Page 2 <br />March 17, 1997 <br /> <br />Recently the developer has requested removing the residency requirement <br />from the Planned Unit development. Therefore, the request is to amend the <br />Planned Unit development agreement to eliminate any age restrictions on <br />the residency of the proposed project. <br /> <br />Analysis <br /> <br />The original plans were reviewed based on the projects proposal as a 55 years <br />and older development. Several recommendations and compromises with the <br />developer were made because of the type of project. With the proposed <br />change eliminating the residency requirement a couple primary concerns <br />arise. <br /> <br />First of all, traffic issues related to the project were reviewed in terms of trip <br />generations based on the residency requirement of the project. By changing <br />the residency requirement this will have an influence on the number of trips <br />generated from the project. Attached is a memo from Terry Maurer <br />explaining his concerns in regards to the traffic ff the residency requirement <br />is changed. <br /> <br />Secondly, on-site parking was not given full consideration. Other townhome <br />projects were required to provide .5 parking stalls per unit. This project <br />should do the same ff the residency is changed. <br /> <br />Lastly, pedestrian movements to and from the project were reviewed; <br />however, discounted because children would not be living in the project. <br />Once again, if the residency requirement is amended, this issue should be <br />further addressed. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br /> <br />The Planning Commission reviewed the request to amend the PUD <br />agreement and recommends the City Council deny the request based on the <br />following: <br /> <br />Testimony from adjacent residents that were opposed to the change in <br />the residency requirement. <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />The information that was submitted by the developer from the <br />beginning was for a 55 year and older townhouse community. <br /> <br />By changing the residency requirement there will be an increase in <br />traffic and the proposed design will not be adequate to handle the <br />change in traffic patterns. <br /> <br />s:\council\derrick.doc <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.