Laserfiche WebLink
k <br />To:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Michael P. Gaffiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator /)^ <br />June 11,1997 <br />Subject:#2240 Jim Waters/LGA Investment Group, XXXX Wildhurst Trail - Sketch Plan <br />Review for Proposed Subdivision - 2 Additional Concept Plans <br />Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered (13 ac.±) <br />RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered (15 ac. ±) <br />Total Area = 28 ac. ± <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - <br />B - <br />C - <br />D - <br />E - <br />F - <br />Letter from Schoell & Madson 6/11/97 <br />Concept Sketch 3 <br />Concept Sketch 4 <br />Planning Commission Minutes of May 19,1997 <br />Zoning Code Section 10.32 - PRD Planned Residential Development <br />Memo & Exhibits of May 16,1997 <br />This item was tabled at your May meeting so that applicant could submit additional concept plans <br />vkdiich address preservation of open space and woods, perhaps via some single family clustering, as <br />well as a number of other issues raised by Planning Commission. Applicant has submitted two <br />additional concept plans. <br />Concept Sketch 3 includes 19 lots averaging 0.97 acre in area and 140' width, with a 3.8 acre open <br />space outlot adjacent to the park area. This sketch also contains a number of'undisturbed areas' <br />around the perimeter. This plan avoids developing some of the more difficult steep slope areas. <br />Concept Sketch 4 provides for 28 lots averaging 80' in width and typically around 1/3 acre in area. <br />This is a linear clustering effect, leaving significant long, narrow blocks of open space along the <br />north and south boundaries of the property. <br />As noted by applicant's engineer, both sketches include a corridor for potential future road <br />connection to the north. This will potentially provide for better emergency access and general traffic <br />circulation, given the potential 3/4 mile length of Wildhurst Trail with no secondary route in or out. <br />% <br />Both concepts would require municipal sewer, MUSA boundary amendment. Comprehensive Plan <br />amendment, and rezoning. Both would have to be reviewed as Planned Residential Developments <br />(PRDs) per zoning code section 10.32. <br />Neither plan provides a secondary, northerly access to the park land, and neither provides potential <br />access to the Hennessey lot from the north. On the plus side, this yields less potential negative