Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File i^l885 <br />May 13. 1994 <br />F'age 2 of 6 <br />C <br />D <br />E <br />F <br />G <br />II <br />I <br />J <br />K <br />L <br />M <br />N <br />O <br />Gustafson Letter of 11/5/93 <br />Flood Plain Map <br />Watershed/Drainage <br />Recommended Alternative for Development Per Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />No. 2 <br />Minutes of Sketch Plan Review at Planning Commission 11/15/93 <br />Existing Land Use <br />Existing Zoning <br />Propjosed Land Use <br />Wetland Designation Information <br />Wetland Mapping <br />Highway 12 Corridor Alternatives <br />Letter to Cook <br />Sketch Plan PUD <br />Status of Application <br />The sketch plan application was presented to the Council at their April 11th meetmg. <br />Applicant's revised plan raised several new issues The Council fell that further reuew and <br />consideration was necessar)- by the Planning Commission before they could provide any direction <br />to applicant and were directed to present the revised plan for consideration by the Planntng <br />Commission at their May meeting. <br />At the November 15. 1993 meeting. Planning Commission advised that the 58 unit <br />density was not acceptable but would consider a plan for reduced density. You concurred that <br />a 19 unit PUD (1 unit per 2 acres) served by sewer and water would not be realistic, but would <br />be willing to consider increases over the RR- IB densities. One clear directive ot Comprehensive <br />Plan No 2 required existing rural residential coned areas to the north and e.ast ot this property <br />be buffered from the more intense developments to the south and so it was agreed 'ta' •• ">= <br />density was to remain at the northern half of the property. Under the current 44 umi PUD plan <br />the applicant contends that die required buffering would be met. The reduced density and <br />clustering of building sites allows for open space areas. <br />The Planning Commission also concurred that because of the unique physical character <br />of this property that it be^t be developed as a PUD. The Planning Commission cited the high <br />water table and the large number and random location of wetlands. <br />The original application sought the rezoning of the entire property from 2 units to 1 unit <br />oer acre The applicant now proposes the rezoning of the southern 30 acres ot the propeiiy to <br />1 acre or R-IA (an approved zoning district per Section 10.52) and the north 28 acres to remain <br />I, 2 ^re. A major o^n space ouilot has been provided along the north averaging a 400 dep^ <br />along County Road 6. The area will serve to provide tor wetland mitigation, open space buf <br />and potential trail (pedestrian and bike) locations.