Laserfiche WebLink
Associate Planner Wald indicated the single-family plan shows less open space and less usable <br />common area than this detached townhome plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember 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 <br />open space. He stated the land will not be used as well and there will be less open space With <br />single-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 />Councitmember 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 />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 />Councilmember 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 />Councilmember Cook commented the cul-de-sad 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 of the road. <br /> <br />Mr. Napier responded in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Councilmember '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 statute and the City having maintained it. Planning would be necessary for the land on the <br />other side of the road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he is very concerned about this project in gene;ral. 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 />P44 <br /> <br />City Council/February 22, 2005 <br /> Page 14 of 31 <br /> <br /> <br />