Laserfiche WebLink
Case #2: <br /> <br /> for SketCh Plan ~pPro~al of Rum myer Meadows; Case of <br />Request <br /> 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 submitted a sketch plan to develop a residential detached <br />townhomc 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 />townhomcs. The sketch plan is proposing toPla[ the property into 26 detached tow~zholne units. <br />The subject property will need to be 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 subdivisirm 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 />Councihncmber Strommen indicated she has the Same comments on this plan as the previous one <br />in tcnns of density, the appropriateness ofthePUD 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 0nly 50 percent of the wetland can be included <br />in thc open space requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmcmber 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 Gamcc 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 /> City C°uncil/January 25, 2005 <br /> page 1~1! of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />