Laserfiche WebLink
Further discussion <br />City Planner McGuire Bergle stated she feared that the additional language would provide the <br />applicant with zero incentive to pave the gravel area as he would be able to use it as is. <br />Commissioner VanScoy explained after two years if the area to the east of the building was not <br />paved the entire gravel area could not be used by the applicant until paved. <br />Commissioner Gengler stated this was a compromise for her but she was willing to offer her <br />support. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners VanScoy, Nosan, Gengler, <br />and Surma. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Anderson. <br />6. COMMISSION BUSINESS - CONTINUED <br />6.03: Review Resubmitted Concept of Shade Tree Cottages; Case of Shade Tree <br />Communities <br />Presentation <br />City Planner McGuire Bergle presented the Staff Report stating Shade Tree Communities has <br />contacted the City and expressed a desire to resubmit a proposed plat known as Shade Tree <br />Cottages. This is a project that went through City review approximately ten (10) years ago and <br />received final plat and site plan approval as well as a zoning amendment to rezone the parcel to <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project is a mix of small -lot single-family and detached <br />townhomes (villas/detached single-family with HOA maintenance). While the final plat and site <br />plan have expired, the zoning of PUD has not. The applicant has submitted a revised concept <br />plan and PUD taking into account current zoning regulations. It was noted the number of <br />proposed lots has decreased from 42 to 38. <br />Commission Business <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked how much of the land was buildable. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill reported 15 acres of the site was buildable which <br />created a net density of 2.7+/- units per acre. He stated the lot sizes were the portion of the <br />project that was deviating from City Code. He reported Lots 8 and 9 were staff's primary <br />concern within this development. He noted these lots could create concerns long-term given the <br />close proximity to the wetland. <br />Chairperson Bauer questioned if Lots 8 and 9 were removed if a PUD would still be required. He <br />asked what other issues remained within the development that required PUD approval. <br />Planning Commission/March 1, 2018 <br />Page 8 of 10 <br />