Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005

Home

Assistant Public Works Director Olson indiCafed it will be difficult to shift Potassium Street due to the wetland along the west side~ Staff Wil! d°!What they can with this request. Associate Planner Wald indicated staff Will.work with the applicant on Council's direction on the plan. No Council action required. Case #2: Request for Sketch Plan Approval of Rum RiVer Meadows; Case of National Growth, LLC Associate Planner Wald explained this site iS lOcated adjacent to the development that was just discussed. National Growth, LLC submitted! a iSketch plan to develop a residential detached townhome subdivision on the pr0perty: geflerallYl located east of' Potassium Street and south of 157"~ Lane. The subject propertyi is 10 acres in size and zoned R-1 Single Family. City Code restricts density to three units perlacre or up to ifo~ units per acre through a PUD that can include townhomes. The sketch plan.is Pt~oposing t° plat the property into 26 detached townhome units. The subject property will need to 'be rezoned to PUD and the required rezoning application will need to be submitted in conjunction with the prelirninaw plat. Associate Planner Wald explained the subdivision is showing a public street servicing the units. City Code restricts cul-de-sac Streets to! 600 '..feet; the proposed public street exceeds this requirement and this would need to be addt~essed as part of the PUD agreement. The sketch plan is providing for a connection to.,the adJaaent;property to the south as required by City Code. There is a substantial, wetland On the prOP%ed plat that will 'need to be delineated and encumbered with drainage and utlhty easement~ on the preliminary and final plats. A detailed grading and drainage plan will: be reVieWed: as, part of the preliminary plat submittal. The subdivision will be subject to Permitting: I~Y the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization. ~ -- Associate Planner Wald indicated the Planning: Commission reviewed the sketch plan at their January 6, 2004 meeting. Sev_e~al residents stated their :opposition regarding the proposed development. She explained th~ Planning Commission unanimouSly denied the sketch plan based on concerns with the proposed d.ensity,, wetland/topography challenges, and lack of compliance with the PUD guidelixtes. SubSequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff received a revised sketch plan showing a reduction to 24 units at a density of 3.4 units per acre. She advised staff feels this is an apPropriate dengity and appropriate development in this area. Councilmember Stromrnen indicated she has the .same comments on this plan as the previoUs one in terms of density, the appropriateness ~of the PUD and benefits to the City, especially with these two wetlands. She inquired about inclusion of the wetland in the open space calculations. Associate Planner Wald replied City Code states in the open space requirements. :only 50 percent of the wetland can be included City CoUnCil/January 25, 2'005 P27