Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 12, 2012 <br />Page 3of 10 <br />Chris PritchardYes <br />Ann O’ConnellYes <br />Cary Tenglers Yes <br />Jeff MolineYes <br />Steve BrauneisYes <br />Scott Russell Yes <br />Motion passed:7 to 0 <br />Resolution No. 29, Series 2011, Steel Ranch South (Takoda, <br />Planning Area 4), <br />a preliminary subdivision plat and preliminary planned <br />unit development for an approximate 17 acre parcel of the Takoda Subdivision <br />with the intent to develop the property with a maximum of 306 residential units <br />(220 –240 apartments and 60 –70 townhomes or duplexes). (Continued from <br />the December 8, 2011 meeting) <br />Applicant, Owner and Representative:RMCS, LLC (David Waldner) <br />Case Manager: Sean McCartney, Principal Planner <br />Public Notice Certification: <br />McCartney reported the item was continued from the December 8, 2011 meeting <br />therefore new public notice was not required. <br />Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: <br />None heard. <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />McCartney provided the staff summary using a power point presentation with the <br />following information: <br />Location of Property. <br />Request: 306 total dwelling units maximum. Single family, attached and <br />detached, approximately 66 units. Multi-family apartments, 240 dwelling units, <br />clubhouse and common area. <br />th <br />McCartney summarized the December 8meeting stating the Planning Commission <br />continued the hearing for the following reasons: <br />1)Planning Commission wanted staff to bring back some alternative roadway <br />designs which showed a detached bike trail. <br />2)Planning Commission was confused as to why Tract O, from the Takoda <br />subdivision, was being included in the Public Land Dedication for Steel Ranch <br />South Subdivision. <br />3)Planning Commission was concerned by a potential turning conflict in <br />Christopher Village. <br />McCartneycontinued with a discussion of the four (4) roadway options. He stated <br />that staff recommends Option #2 based on overall flow line width, travel lane width, <br />snow storage possibilities and adequate sound buffering/screening landscaping. The <br />one-street bike path allows a transition from rural to urban. He also stated staff will <br />continue to work with the applicant on alternative designs for the intersection turning <br />radii at Luke Street and Steel Street. <br />McCartney stated a condition of approval has been including regarding Tract “O”. <br />The condition reads as follows: The applicant shall continue to work with the Parks <br /> <br />