Laserfiche WebLink
existing and proposed homes. <br /> <br />Megan Wald, representing Shade Tree Communities, stated that her firm has been working with <br />the City for one year on this plat and has been denied. Shade Tree purchased the property to <br />develop it per City Code and they want to work with the City to get something going and it is <br />frustrating to be continually denied. Shade Tree is open to ideas to make the plat work. The <br />moratorium sparks another issue~for Shade Tree; it appears to Shade Tree that the cluster <br />ordinance would not be a major issue if Shade Tree's proposal had not come forward. Shade. Tree <br />is willing to work anything out <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt responded that he is sympathetic to Shade Tree's efforts on a challenging piece <br />of property containing wetlands, limited access, and uncertainty of extension of future services. <br />The City has to look at the intent behind the cluster ordinance; it is not to assure development, it <br />was intended to establish appropriate standards for development. Locating new homes along the <br />common boundary with existing homes hasn't changed throughout the process: <br /> <br /> Ms. Wald replied that City Council approved that particular layout at a work session and Shade <br /> Tree proceeded on that basis. The City's traffic study only called for a stop sign; it didn't say <br /> there is a traffic issue with the additional traffic. Shade Tree is willing to eliminate some of the <br /> lots if that is what the City wants. Shade Tree is not sure how to proceed based on information <br /> received. There are many ways to deal with density transitioning; several lots could be <br /> eliminated on the north property line; more trees can be added on the east property line. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that the proposed project does not fit for other reasons also. Mr. Nixt <br />quoted certain sections of the Comprehensive Plan addressing the Rural Developing area: <br />"Because of this very low-density pattern of development and the numerous wetlands, the <br />extension of urban services to the rural developing area is not practical or f'mancially feasible"; <br />"encourage preservation of open space and natural resources beyond what is required by <br />ordinance or other legal means through the PUD process"; encourage environmentally sensitive <br />and open space design and construction techniques that preserve natural resources within private <br />control"; "plans reflect strong sensitivity to protecting and enhancing natural resources, <br />particularly in relation to the greenway corridor system". Chairperson Nixt referred to the cluster <br />ordinance which states that the location of the houses in relationship to houses on adjacent <br />properties is a consideration, as well as cun'ent and future streets and easements. Both'versions <br />of Shade Tree's preliminary plat had issues and he doesn't see any meaningful changes. <br /> <br />Megan Wald responded that Shade Tree is meeting the literal requirements of the cluster <br />ordinance, but there are some issues that Shade Tree cannot change, like the second access; <br />Shade Tree can only change what they control. Ms. Wald reiterated that they can add more trees <br />to the east property line and reduce the number of lots on the north property line. <br /> <br />-170- <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 24, 2006 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />