Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Olson stated she also echoes the same concerns with the last development <br />regarding density, particularly because of the long cul-de-sac and that there is only one entrance. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired about the street labeled as reserved. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson responded there is a long skinny piece of property <br />directly to the south that has some upland: Staff felt an access needed to be provided for in this <br />plat. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec indicated it should be ensured that the road right-of-way is acquired to <br />accommodate the width of a City road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig inquired about the flood plain in relation to the wetlands. He indicated he <br />has concerns with the density, but he likes this plan better than the last one because it butts up to <br />some back yards and a wooded area, rather than face to face at another development. He does <br />not like the length of the cul-de-sac. He noted they are not far from meeting R-1 requirements in <br />this development. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson explained the R-1 setback requirements could not be met <br />with the townhome units. This is a challenged site due to the wetland on both sides and the <br />public street setback requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig suggested if two units were removed the R-1 density requirements would <br />be met. A PUD could be utilized to do something different with the.challenging site to be able to <br />keep the wooded area and the buffer zone. <br /> <br />Sara Pickard, 15751 Potassium Street, stated she is having a difficult time understanding the <br />Council's Comments and why they think this density is okay here but not on the previous <br />development. She believes there are density transitioning laws, although it may not apply to her <br />by ordinance. She suggested there be consideration of changing the ordinance so it applies to <br />protect the lot, regardless of the size. She inquired about the holding ponds that are not included <br />in this plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook explained the drainage will go through extensive review at the preliminary <br />plat level. <br /> <br />Ms. Pickard stated she does not understand what purpose is served in this development. The <br />gentleman who purchased this land should know what is being purchased and the ordinances that <br />are in place. One would hope if someone is going to invest money in land like this one would <br />have to have a plan, and the surrounding homeowners would expect something of similar <br />character to their neighborhood. The homes to the east of this are all single family homes with <br />reasonable sized lots and it is not unreasonable to request that this be similar to the surrounding <br />areas to the east, north and northeast. She questioned if the development to the west is also <br />lowered in density, why this development would not be as well. <br /> <br />P28 <br /> <br />City Council/January 25, 2005 <br /> Page 12 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />