Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/09/2006

Home

Case #4: Request for Sketch Plan Review of Shade Tree Creek; Case of Shade Tree Construction Associate Planner Wold advised that Shade Tree Construction has applied for sketch plan review to develop I6 single-family lots on the property generally located south of 177tn Avenue. She indicated the property is 40 acres in size and is currently located in the R- I Rural Developing district, with a minimum density of 1 lot per 2.5 acres, or 0.4 units per acre, and as submitted the sketch plan is showing approximately 0.4 units per acre. She stated all of the proposed lots appear to meet the R-I Rural Developing standards for lot width, size, and frontage on a public road, with the exception of Lot 9, which appears slightly larger than permitted. She indicated density and lot standards will be verified as a part of the preliminary plat review. Associate Planner Wold explained the sketch plan is showing how the entire property could be developed if City services were to be extended to this property, however only I6 lots are being developed at this time. She stated there are wetlands on the proposed plat that will need to be delineated and encumbered with drainage and utility easements on the preliminary and final plats. She indicated the proposed lots will be served by a common septic system, and the sketch plan is proposing to gain access from 177t" Avenue. She noted the Meloches' are south of th/s property and received variances to have no public frontage. Tt:ere is a private access easement the property. She indicated Staff is recommending the punic street be platted & constructed to the southern boundary line along the property. Commissioner Johnson asked what the thought is behind doing so. Associate P[armer Wold stated it would provide the opportunity for a public street to the property line, which is currently a long gravel access. Commissioner Johnson suggested that was putting a heavy burden on the developer without the sale of lots, and he wondered if it was an ur~reasonable request. Chairperson Nixt noted the developer is coming ~'orward with just three lots for future development on that road, and he does believe it is unreasonable. Commissioner Brunet asked what the existing agreement is on the access road. He stated he would assume the Meloches had an a~eement to allow the road to go through the property. He indicated what the developer is doing now is moving the dirt road $iiglxtly to accommodate these lots and extending the part that would follow the grade of the existing road. Nh'. Stradlund stated he has an agreement with the Meloches to vacate this easement and provide a new one. He indicated he did not extend the road now because he used all the density available on the lots, and it would be additional cost for lots that are not developed. He indicated the road will have to be redone to provide City utilities in the future. 11