Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1885 <br />November 12, 1993 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />Please review Exhibit B. applicant’s addendum provides supportive findings for rezoning <br />as follows: <br />1. There is adequate sewer capacity for 58 units as overall sewer needs for the area <br />were projected at 300-450. The recommended alternative plan showed the 120 acre <br />area at a maximum development density of two acres with a potential 60 units. Half <br />of the 120 acres is being developed into ballfields and an elementary school. The <br />propose*? 58 units could easily be accommodated. <br />2. Th*^ PUD has been designed to minimize impact on adjacent rural properties to east <br />and north by providing larger, deeper lots with more restrictive setbacks on the north <br />side and a natural buffer of existing wetlands and open space along the east side. <br />Applicant also notes that the existing wetlands along the south side will provide a <br />buffer from the multiple residential units planned for property to south. <br />3. The PUD was specifically created for the Highway 12 corridor to encourage the best <br />development by allowing clustering and designation of open space areas to buffer and <br />protect sensitive areas. <br />4. The PUD provides efficiency as fiir as consolidating lots along the interior road <br />system and minimizine earthwork needed for correcting high water table problems. <br />5. The high water table and random location of wetlands require flexibility in design and <br />lot layout. <br />6. The application as proposed would satisfy the special requirements for rezoning in <br />the Highway 12 corridor study area as set forth in Section 10.52 and addressed on <br />Pages 5-12 of applicant’s addendum. <br />Review Exhibit 0. Applicant’s addendum has noted that a major retention pond at <br />approximately 6-7 ,'icres will be installed as a re.sult of the Highway 12 safety improvements <br />scheduled in the next few years. The City Engineer advises that the safety plans have been <br />amended and the retention pond area has been reduced to 4 acres. The pond has been designed <br />to treat onlv the runoff from Hichwav 12 and not the developed land areas to north. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Will the PUD as proposed be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed future uses <br />of surrounding properties __ will it meet the intent of Comp Pfm Amendment No. 2.^ <br />2. Will the special design feanires ot the PUD layout assure future compatibility?