Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council queries traffic, density and historic preservation for proposed Havenwood Manor development
Summary
Council asked staff and the applicant detailed questions about a proposed 107-lot Havenwood Manor subdivision, focusing on traffic (a traffic statement vs. a full study), density (5.7 units/acre), a historic overlay, proposed interpretive signage for a water tower, remediation testing, and required buyer disclosures.
Council discussed the Havenwood Manor proposal (item 9, resolution 5964) in depth, questioning traffic impacts, density, historic resources, and neighborhood disclosures.
Darcy Smith (planning staff) told council a traffic study was not done; instead the project submitted a traffic statement comparing the site’s prior use to the proposed residential use. Traffic engineering staff explained the prior use generated about 250 daily trips while the proposed 107 homes would generate just under 1,100 daily trips, an increase of roughly 830 trips per day. Staff said that represented about 7% of Vassar Road’s capacity based on the city’s 2024 counts and that the roadway generally has remaining capacity.
Applicant representative Bridal Ray said the project team complied with staff’s traffic statement requirements, noted constraints imposed by a historic overlay on the site’s west side, and described mitigation commitments including an interpretive sign and a silhouette of the water tower as a Planned Development stipulation. Ray said environmental remediation and soil testing would be performed as part of redevelopment and confirmed the development would be a for-sale subdivision with an HOA and standard CC&Rs; he also said the team held two neighborhood meetings and spoke with nearby residents.
Council members asked about signal timing and left-turn accommodations at adjacent intersections, whether cross-access to Snedeker Sports Complex parking is feasible, and potential impacts from adjacent ballfield lighting and events. Staff said the Snedeker complex parking areas do not connect and that a study would be required to create such a connection. Council requested copies of the traffic materials prior to the Thursday hearing and asked staff and the applicant to consider adding language about lighting and 'nuisance' impacts to the project's stipulations and disclosure language for buyers.
The exchange also covered density comparisons to nearby developments (the applicant described nearby densities of about 8.7 and 5.3 in surrounding projects, and said the proposed 5.7 density is roughly in the middle of the neighborhood), and the applicant indicated they would push lots away from the dog park and include a disclosure notifying buyers of proximity to the park.
No formal vote on the rezoning was recorded in the study-session excerpt; council directed staff and the applicant to prepare materials for the upcoming public hearing.
