01-11-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

16-3804 January 7, 2016 Page 4 Sewer & Water Utilities. Municipal sewer and water utilities will have to be extended westward from Old Crystal Bay Road to serve development at this site. The anticipated costs and distribution of costs for such extensions were reviewed by the City Engineer in 2015 – see attachments to Exhibit D. The applicants have submitted a petition for extension of sewer and water lines to serve this site in anticipation of gaining final plat approval in late spring of this year – see Exhibit D. Shoreland Management Standards While not abutting any lakeshore, the property is within the defined Shoreland Overlay District and subject to the pertinent regulations of Sections 78-1211 thru 78-1331. Wetlands The property contains a significant area of wetlands and is subject to pertinent City and other agency regulations. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts The site is wooded around the perimeter of the landfill site and has scattered stands of trees in the proposed area for development. In the development scheme proposed, major tree removals would be anticipated. Maintenance of existing screening and/or establishment of new screening along Wayzata Boulevard should be a goal of the developer. Conservation Design Development of the site will require adherence to the Conservation Design elements of the zoning code. Archaeological Site Proximity Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm. Bluff Impacts Available topography suggests that there are no bluffs on the property. This will have to be confirmed. Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Council should include the following topics: 1) The departure from the specific development parameters established for development of this site in the CMP; i.e. the 27 proposed single family homes as compared to two multi- family buildings. Is the single-family concept right for this area? Does it match the City’s goals in terms of housing type and density? Is there a significant difference in visual impact from off-site of a row of townhomes vs. two larger buildings? 2) The general design and orientation of dwelling units proposed and the minimal lot sizes and setbacks as compared to the RPUD standards, would indicate the need for development flexibility with this concept. 3) In discussing the Phase II multi-family concept for the landfill area, Council should consider whether there are other desired or to-be-explored options for that site. 4) The issue of future implications of developing at densities lower than those guided for in the Comp Plan will be reviewed with Freya Thamman later this month – staff will apprise Council of the results of that discussion. 5) Are there other topics not currently noted in this memo that should be discussed