Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/21/2003

Home

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION t-..._ ................. Topic Report: Village of Sunfish Lake Subdivision By: Patrick Trudgeon, AICP, Principal Planner Background: LTR Development has submitted a preliminary plat known as Village at Stmfish Lake for the land located south of Sunwood Drive between Potassium St. and 145~ Lane. They have previously submitted a sketch plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their January 2, 2003 meeting. At the January 2nd Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission and neighboring residents brought up concerns relating to the proposed development. Concerns raised included the proposed density of the development, the location of the trails, preservation of existing trees on the site, the Tungsten St. stub road connection, the narrow width of the su-eets, .and the smaller sizex lots. The applicant, after heating the comments at the Planning Commission and talking to st~ has made revisions to the sketch plan and has submitted a preliminary plat that.attempts to address the concerns as follows: Density: The original sketch plan showed a total of 129 units ( 91 single-family lots and 38 association maintained cottages) with a projected net density of around 4.5 units per acres. This density exceeds what is allowed under the subject property's land use designation of low density residential. Therefore, a Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation to Medium Density Residential would be required, The Planning Commission and'the residents that testified were uncomfortable in changing-the land use to Medium Density where up to 7 units per net acre is allowed. Based on this input, the Developer has removed a total of 14 units (12 single- family lots and 2 association maintained cottages) and now has a net.density of 3.98 units per acre. The submitted preliminary plat now shows 79 single-family lots and 36 association maintained cottages. - . r Trails: The original sketch plan showed walking/biking trails around the perimeter of the subject property. At the Planning Commission meeting on Janumy 2nd, neighbors raised concerns about safety, privacy, and tree loss. The Planning Commission deferred consideration of the matter to the Park Commission. At their meeting on January 9, 2003, the Park Commission stated strongly that the trails should remain. The preliminary plat submitted shows the north-south trail on the eastern edge of the property remaining, but shows the east-west trail on the southern edge removed. Mark. Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor will be at the work session to discuss the trails issue in more detail. Attached to this cover sheet are the results fi-om a'neighborhood survey conducted by Jo, hn and Sandy Bertzyk regarding the neighborhood's desire for the construction oflrails that would border the existing lots. -3-