Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL - 71 93B - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (11)Memo to Steve Burkett Waterglen Proposed Development Page 4 on all streets in the City. One of the results of the fees is that it spreads the cost of constructing the arterial street system to everyone that uses it, and not just the property owners who happen to be adjacent to the roadway. K Another consideration for the Waterglen development is the desire to encourage certain growth in the northeast part of the City. According to the Land Use Policies Plan there are several policies in Part II - Growth Management that promote traffic and pedestrian circulation and public transit, promote the utilization of vacant land and encourage residential development, particularly for undeveloped industrially - zoned land adjacent to existing neighborhoods. The Planning Department believes that these policies, coupled with the Growth Management'Committee direction on phasing of developments, are not being met by the Waterglen Project and, in fact, it is a case of leap -frog development. The . affordable housing issue was raised by the developer as a desired benefit to the City, but the mid -priced housing costs proposed do not meet the City's definition of affordable housing. Recommendation: The Waterglen project does not meet any criteria for getting street oversizing reimbursement. The development, from a planning perspective, is low on the priority scale for managing growth because of its location so far away from other development. The staff, therefore, recommends that the reimbursement from street oversizing be denied which allows the developer to build Vine Street adjacent to this project to a 36' width roadway to include two travel lanes and two bike lanes and right/left turn lanes. w Memo to Steve Burkett Waterglen Proposed Development Page 3 There are other qualifiers identified by the City Traffic Engineer that may be considered if a development proposal only meets one of the quantitative community benefit criteria. These are improvements that would remove an existing capacity restriction or increase safety, or remove an obsolete design area. The Waterglen proposal does none of these. The proposed Waterglen development does not meet the Council -approved criteria and should not be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement. Street Oversizing Fees The City would collect street oversizing fees with each building permit for this development. The street oversizing fund would still be used in the future to construct improvements on Vine Drive. However, the City would not be "double-dipping" this neighborhood for street oversizing costs. The City code clearly states in Section 24-. 121(b): ' "The City Council shall, by Resolution, adopt criteria to evaluate the community benefit of streets in a development project to determine whether street oversizing improvements are needed. If the City determines that the construction of oversized street improvements does not convey a measurable community benefit according to such criteria, then no monies expended by the developer for such street oversizing expenditures shall be eligible for reimbursement by the City, and the street construction requirements for the development shall be limited to those reasonably necessary to offset the traffic impacts of the development." The City will require the Waterglen development to improve the arterial street of Vine Drive only to account for the traffic impacts of the development and traffic safety considerations. The City will require the Waterglen development to improve the collector street of Waterglen Drive only to account for the traffic impacts of the development and traffic safety considerations. By not requiring the developer to build the oversized portion of these streets, no ... reimbursement is necessary. This development would not have to pay double costs for on -site improvements - only the costs to offset their own traffic impacts. Street oversizing fees are City-wide impact fees. All fees collected are used Memo to Steve Burkett Waterglen Proposed Development Page 2 The adopted criteria consist of two main parts, Contiguity and a Quantifcation of Community Benefit that are applied to each development. The Waterglen proposal is interpreted as follows: 1. Contiguity Requirement. A development proposal should meet a contiguity requirement (similar to the contiguity for annexations). Waterglen is not contiguous to any existing development. An exception to this requirement would be for a development proposal between two already developed areas that are located on the arterial street that provides major access. This exception to the contiguity requirement encourages developments to improve arterials that are already a major access road for existing development. Although the developer of Waterglen contends that his proposal meets this exception by citing Anheuser Busch and Lemay Avenue, the Waterglen site is 2 1/2 miles from Lemay Avenue on Vine Drive, which is not a major access for anything. 2. Quantified Community Benefit. A development proposal should meet two (2) of these quantitative criteria to be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement. These criteria are: traffic volumes, connection. completion. or infill. Traffic Volumes - Present or near future traffic volumes would exceed capacity and indicate improvements are necessary (in this case, over 6,000 ADT for two-lane County standard roadway). Vine Drive currently carries 1,100 ADT, with this development projected to add another 2,000 ADT at full development. This is one-half of the comfortable carrying capacity of Vine Drive. The Waterglen proposal does not meet the traffic volumes' criteria. Connection - Arterial street connects to existing full -width improved arterial street. The Waterglen proposal does not meet this criteria. Completion - Connects or improves an inadequate street between two fully -improved streets (origin or destination completed). The Waterglen proposal does not meet this criteria. h3fg - Located in an infill development. The Waterglen proposal does not meet this criteria. MEMORANDUM DATE:. June 9, 1994 TO: Steve Burkett, City Manager THRU: Greg Byrne, CPES Director Gary Diede, Director of Engineer' Ron Phillips, Director of Plannin FROM: Matt Baker, SID Coordinator RE: WATERGLEN STREET OVERSIZING FOR ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS The Engineering staff has reviewed the Waterglen proposal and applied the adopted street oversizing criteria. Staff believes that the Waterglen proposal does not meet the street oversizing criteria and would not be eligible for reimbursement for on -site collector and arterial street construction (estimated to be $160,000). City Council adopted criteria with the 1988 Street Oversizing ordinance changes. These criteria are intended to encourage development immediately outside existing development (and infill projects), and to discourage 'leapfrog" development by limiting City participation in the construction of oversized streets. Staff believes that by eliminating our street oversizing obligations in outlying areas that require streets to be built (and maintained) prematurely, the City would get the most value from its street oversizing dollar by spending street oversizing funds in, infill areas and on areas that would extend the existing street network in a logical sequence. The object of these adopted criteria is for the street network to grow in a safer and more affordable way. The adopted criteria are a measurement of community benefit for the streets in a development proposal. Used in conjunction with transportation planning, these criteria have been a method for quantifying street construction in a development for street oversizing reimbursement.