Laserfiche WebLink
Case 89: Requesi for Ske~h Pliln ~i~pi:~val ;of Shade Tree Cottages; Case of Shade <br /> Tree CommunR~s, BLC ~: 'i:: ~ <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wa!d indicat~ S~de ~T~ee~o~unities, LLC has applied'for sketch plan <br />review to create a residential g~m~.Uhi~ u~elopment (PUD) subdivision on the prope~y <br />generally located west: of Pot~mm ~S~e~!; ~[¢d ~ast of No,hen Boulevard. ~e C~ty Council <br />reviewed the sketch plan at that J~ 2~, :~05' meeting. Subsequent to the City Council <br />meeting, staff receiVed a reviS~kete~l~:;~br~¢ounCil'consideration. She requested input from <br />the Council regarding ~he sketch, plan: ~S~0~ the developer is not required to come bac~ <br />the Council for sketch:plan app~val,}U~t~ ~:i~)~ impo~ant to get ~nher.direction ~om the <br />Council before they p~oceed t°~reii~h~ Pl¢~ ~ere are many details to work out, but the <br />developer would like input ~o~ the~oCn~:fl ~ to whether they are on the right track. She <br />explained ~f the Counml prov~d~ mv d eCtion does not ~arantee that the developer will <br />be approved for th~s nmber off,ts at pr~i~m~ plat. <br /> . ~ . ~ ,'_~ ~ .~ ..... <br />Councflmember Elmg co~en~ the nu~ :qf umts ~s stall h~gh. He requested ~n the ~mre <br />staff portray how the developm~t being ~i~eus~ed relates to su~oun&ng propemes w~th road, <br />wate~ay and geenspace co~om._::~e:~mented there were a lot of questmns ~om the <br />neighbors about PotasSium S~e~ a~d ~ i~ ~ ne~ to be moved or realized. ~e Engineer <br />had concnems about mowng 113o: th~!~ dU~ to ~e wetl~d. He expressed concern w~th <br />approving the sketch plan at th~ time ~Wi~h0at~ddressing these concerns, as it would put them <br />into the60-daymle. : ~} :~ :~ }: } } <br /> <br />James Napier of MidWest LanO~ S~i~,}r~r¢~'entative of the applicant, explained the Lower <br />Rum River Water Manag~ent ~0manm~i°fl~ld not officiallY cogent on the possibility of <br />moving Potasmum S~eet wtthod~ officml pl~s~: ?owever, they stated a m~mmal wetland ~mpact <br />Is prefe~ed and mowng ~s s~eet :~wCSt would des~oy over 1/3 acre of wetland. In <br />addition, an e~ement Would be~eed~ffpffi th~ pr°P~y owner to the south and utilities would <br />also need to be moved. :; : - ~ : [ ~ <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook~inquir~ ff P°t~sih~ S~et already exists on the cu~ent aliment as a <br />Ci~road. : ' ~: <br />City Attorney Goodrich repli~ i~ w~ go~ d~di*it~ to the City, but the City has obtained title to <br />the road through maintaining it. ;' : ~ ~:~ ~: ~ <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen co~ented ~e ke~ some minor improvments in this plan, but she <br />echoes Councilmemb~ Elvig 5ln ~ ~ ~e back to the original density the Pla~ing <br />Commission thought ~was too ~'aense.: ~h¢: n~ted this is a challenged Site, and a PUD is <br />appropriate, but the PUD is ap~roPfi~e ~°Sm{~gate the impacts to the wetland and create the <br />open space on a challenged sit~i mNiejsh~ ~J.{~s PUD being used to develop nearly all of the <br />upland space. At this time she j~ qUe~iobi~g ~e wisdom of tNs concept aaer the third attempt <br />and is wondering if they should !0ok ara ~ingF'¢mily option. ' <br /> <br /> Gi~ C~uSeW~ruary 22, 2005 <br /> <br />P43 <br /> <br /> <br />