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 />