Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant Public Works Director Olson indicated it will be difficult to shift Potassium Street due <br />to the wetland along the west side. Staffwilldo What they can with this request. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Weld indicated staff will. work With the applicant on Council's direction on the <br />plan. <br /> <br />No Council action required. <br /> <br />Case//2: Request for Sketch Plan ApproVal of Rum River Meadows; Case of National <br /> Growth, LLC <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald explained this site is loCated adjacent to the development that was just <br />discussed. National Growth, LLC sUbmi~ed a sketch plan to develop a residential detached <br />townhome subdivision On the property generally located east of Potassium Street and south of <br />157th Lane. The subject property is 10 acres in size and zoned R-1 Single FamilY. City Code <br />restricts density to three units per acre or Up to four units per acre through a PUD that can include <br />townhomes. The sketch plan is proposing to plat the property into 26 detached townhome units. <br />The subject property will need tobe rezoned to PUD and the required rezoning application will <br />need to be submitted in conjunction with the preliminary plat. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald explained the Subdivision is showing a public street servicing the units. <br />City Code restricts cul-de-sac streets to 600 feet; the proposed public street exceeds this <br />requirement and this would need to be addressed as part of the PUD agreement. The sketch plan <br />is providing for a connection to the adjacent property to the south as required by City Code. <br />There is a substantial wetland on the proposed plat that will need to be delineated and <br />encumbered with drainage and utility easements on the preliminary and final plats. A detailed <br />grading and drainage plan will be reviewed as Part of the preliminary plat submittal. The <br />subdivision will be subject to permitting by the Lower Rum River Watershed Management <br />Organization. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated the planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan at their <br />January 6, 2004 meeting. Several residents stated their opposition regarding the proposed <br />development. She explained the Planning Commission unanimously denied the sketch plan <br />based on concerns with the proposed density, wetland/topography challenges, and lack of <br />compliance with the PUD guidelines. SubseqUent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff <br />received a revised sketch plan showing a reduction to 24 units at a density of 3.4 units per acre. <br />She advised staff feels this is an apProPriate density and appropriate development in this area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen indicated she has the same comments on this plan as the previous one <br />in terms of density, the appropriateness; of the PUD and benefits to the City, especially with these <br />two wetlands. She inquired about inclusion of the wetland in the open space calculations. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald replied City COde states only 50 percent of the wetland can be included <br />in the open space requirements. :. <br /> <br />City Council/January 25, 2005 <br /> Page 11 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />