Laserfiche WebLink
Associate Planner Wald indicated the singleSfamily plan shows less open space and less usable <br />common area than this detached townhome plan:: <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated he sees the oPpOsite of the concerns of Councilmembers Elvig and <br />Strommen. The density is being increased, but :the PUD is protecting the wetland and using the <br />area for its highest and best use. These: detached townhomes are basically single-family <br />dwellings, and they will have to look at more of this if they are going to protect wetland and open <br />space, l-te stated the land will not be used,as Well and there will be less open space with single- <br />family homes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated the wetland cannot be developed unless it is mitigated and <br />there is precious little upland preserved in this plan. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald explained the single-family lot lines go into the wetland and become part <br />of the lot; the area does not become common open space for enjoyment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson noted the other issue she :sees is the long cul-de-sacs. They are running <br />into that issue with another development and trying to figure how to get in and out in case of an <br /> <br />emergency. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated the longest cul-de-sac is 640 feet, and the City's minimum <br />requirement is 600 feet. <br /> <br />Councilmcmber Elvig inquired about the possibility of the road exiting onto Potassium Street. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald replied that relates to: the wetland mitigation issue. A driveway would <br />be less impact than a road. During preliminary plat review it would be determined if these roads <br />would be acceptable. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook commented the cul-de-sac has been changed due to the Council's request <br />on the previous plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson questioned if the property owners that abut Potassium Street to the east <br />own property 20 feet onto the other side °fthe road. <br /> <br />Mr. Napier rcsponded in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Councilmcmber Pearson inquired who would own that sliver of land. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained the City can only take what it has acquired by deed or through <br />use statutc and the City having maintained it. Planning would be necessary for the land on the <br />other side of the road. <br /> <br />Counci hnember Elvig stated he is very concerned about this project in general. This is the third <br />time this has come back and they are still not seeing some of the same things mitigated. He <br /> <br />City COuncil/February 22, 2005 <br /> page:14! of 31 <br /> <br /> <br />