Laserfiche WebLink
with this development. Associate Planner Wald :eXplained along the northern plat boundary line, <br /> the subject property is located next to Single i.family lots that are located outside of the <br /> Metropolitan Urban Service Amd (MUSA)i :an~d therefore the plat Will be Subject to density <br /> transitioning. City Code allows, the City CounCil to determine the proper buffer level for PUD <br /> developments. The sketch plan is providing t00 feet between the rear lot line of the existing <br /> single-family homes and the de_~ched tOwnhOme units. During preliminary plat review a <br /> comprehensive discussion will need to occur 'in order to provide for the most effective buffer <br /> between the existing residential neighborhood ~and the proposed development. <br /> <br /> Associate Planner Wald indicate8 there is iasubstantial wetland on the proposed plat that will <br /> need to be delineated and encumbered withi~ainage and utility easements on/he preliminary and <br /> final plats. A detailed ~rading anti drainag~ Plan Will be reViewed as part of the preliminary plat <br /> submittal. The subdivision will lbe subject to:permitting by the LoWer Rum River Watershed <br /> Management Organization. : : ~: : <br /> <br /> Associate Planner Wald explained the Plang Commission reviewed the sketch plan at their <br /> January 6, 2005 meeting. AlthoUgh sketch plans are not subject to an official public hearing,. <br /> Chairperson Nixt alloWed comments from re.sidents in attendance. Several residents stated their <br /> opposition regarding the proposed idevel°p~ent. !The Planning Commission unanimously denied <br /> the sketch plan based on concerns' with-.th~ ProP0SCd density, wetland/toPography challenges, and <br /> lack of compliance with the PUD guidetin~s~ 5 She explained as' previously mentioned the sketch <br /> plan has been substantially revised since the Plea{ming Commission reviewed it. The main factor <br /> driving the revision was to provide for:mOre direct public street connection to Radium Street, <br /> which resulted in a different layout of reSid~ntiallunits' <br />· Associate Planner Waldindicated as she S .ta, ted; the Planning Commission denied the sketch plan. <br /> However, City Code states that anlapplleant has Ihe right to request that the City Council review <br /> a sketch plan. The applicant is: exerCiSing thil option and is requesting input from the City <br /> Council. She explained the inte,nt o~ skct~hi plans are to .merely get a conceptual look at a <br /> proposed subdivision. The details rel~tex! to icOmpliance with PUD guidelines, setbacks, and <br /> architectural standards lam revioWed in gregt !detail during preliminary plat review, staff <br /> recognizes that the Planning comml$sion and :area residents have concerns related to this <br /> development, and that there are details to wor:kl through. However, with that said, it is staff's <br /> opinion that the proposed single u~it to~mCs:'and the proposed 3.5 units per acre density is an <br /> appropriate use of the subject prOpertyl Furthe~rmore, City Code establishes that .low density <br /> townhome developments not exceeding four Units per-acre is an acceptable land use in the R-1 <br /> District. Therefore, staff recomniends that the ~City Council direct the applicant to p}oceed to <br /> preliminary plat and begin working throUgh. City :Code requirements. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Pearson inquired if PotassiuTM Street is a private street. <br /> <br /> Associate Planner Wald replied 'the Ci~ AIt0mey has reviewed this and determined that <br /> Potassium Street is a 66-foot wide !pUblic dedicated street. ~ <br /> <br />City COun~!!/Ja~nuary 25, 2005 <br /> · ~aile 5 of 24 <br /> <br />P21 <br /> <br /> <br />