Agenda - Council - 05/22/2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

lour 1111.1siion: To work together to reiposibty grow our community, and to provide quality, coat -effective, and efficient government ierrlcas. CC Regular Session 7. 5. Meeting Date: 05/22/2018 By: Chloe McGuire Brigl, Community Development Information Title: Review Resubmitted Concept of Shade Tree Cottages and Discuss Requested Cost Share for Potassium Street; Case of Shade Tree Communities Purpose/Background: Shade Tree Communities has contacted the City and expressed a desire to resubmit a proposed plat known as Shade Tree Cottages. This is a project that went through City review approximately ten (10) years ago and received final plat and site plan approval as well as a zoning amendment to rezone the parcel to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project is a mix of small -lot single-family and detached townhomes (villas/detached single-family with HOA maintenance). While the final plat and site plan have expired, the zoning of PUD has not. The applicant has submitted a revised concept plan taking into account current zoning regulations. The applicant would like to discuss and receive feedback from the City Council regarding sharing the costs of upgrading Potassium Street. Potassium Street is currently a gravel road and would need to be paved as part of this development project. Unlike other recent projects, this planned development does not advance other City planning priorities such as a future business park and Potassium Street is not a collector road serving multiple major neighborhoods. There is, however, a benefit in the sense of ongoing maintenance for paving the road. Observations/Alternatives: PUD Information: While the final plat and site plan have long since expired, the approval of the Zoning Amendment to Planned Unit Development is still valid as the City never considered a subsequent Zoning Amendment to revert back to the underlying Zoning District of R-1 Residential (MUSA). Staff has verified with the City Attorney that the project must go through the subdivision process again, due to expiration of the original plan and changes to regulations. Specifically, current standards related to lot depth and wetland setbacks are considerably different than when the proposed development was originally designed. The applicant has submitted a revised concept plan that better complies with current regulations. For example, the applicant is attempting to account for the current 16.5 foot wetland setback and has adjusted roadway alignments to reflect adjacent property owner's lot boundaries. In reviewing the concept plan, Staff found several deviations from the current R-1 (MUSA) regulations. Specifically, lots 8 and 9 do not appear to meet lot depth requirements and staff would recommend removing these lots to provide additional green space for the subdivision. Additionally, it is unclear whether Lots 32 & 33 comply with the lot depth requirements and it appears that there would be wetland impacts to provide access to these proposed lots. The proposed net density appears to meet code requirements at approximately 2.7 units per acre. The code also requires 16.5 foot wetland setbacks, which appear to be met. The applicant has stated that the public purpose for the PUD would be extra protection of extensive wetlands, trees, and open space. The HOA would also guarantee architectural standards set at the beginning of the project and