Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />DRAFT <br /> 3 <br />The chair of P&Z offered information on the board’s action which removed the FUD 82 <br />district. Since the zoning ordinance was already recommended for approval by the board, 83 <br />that element remains in the ordinance. 84 <br />Councilmember Lyden said he supports dropping the FUD district. He noted the area of 85 <br />Centerville Road and Birch Street and a planned residential/commercial district 86 <br />designation; he wonders what that means. The consultant explained that would allow a 87 <br />mix of commercial and residential (multifamily and commercial in that location). 88 <br />Councilmember Lyden remarked that what’s lacking in the City are trails that go around 89 <br />lakes; can there be some plans for that? Ms. Lindahl responded that the parks and trails 90 <br />map includes many trail plans including around Cedar Lake. 91 <br /> 92 <br />Mayor Rafferty said he reviewed the P&Z board hearing audio and concurs with the 93 <br />removal of the FUD district. 94 <br /> 95 <br />Ms. Lindahl explained that the council should watch for an updated map and information 96 <br />in their packet for the upcoming council meeting. 97 <br />3. Watermark PUD Concept Plan for Amendment #4-Land Use Plan – City 98 <br />Planner Larsen introduced a representative of Lennar builders. She reviewed a 99 <br />presentation that included information on the following: 100 <br />- Concept plan is a high level discussion and in this case of an amendment to the 101 <br />original agreement for the land use plan; 102 <br />- The developer feels the amendment is needed to match current housing demands; 103 <br />no change in number of housing units proposed; 104 <br />- Review of the Watermark plans; amendment proposed to north end of the project 105 <br />and to convert certain types of lots to a different product, including introduction of 106 <br />some 45 foot lots but with an increase in public open space; 107 <br />- Chart shown comparing features of different types of housing; 108 <br />- Staff analysis of proposed changes and staff comments; 109 <br />- No architectural changes; 110 <br />- Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Board comments reviewed; lack of general support for 111 <br />45 foot lots; general support for tot lot and dog park; 112 <br />- Garage Size – former standard or newly adopted would apply? 113 <br /> 114 <br />Staff developed a suggestion after the P&Z meeting which was reviewed with the council. 115 <br /> 116 <br />Mayor Rafferty said he isn’t big on the townhomes where proposed and he doesn’t 117 <br />support the 45 foot lot. 118 <br /> 119 <br />Councilmember Cavegn said he is okay with the townhomes but doesn’t like the small 120 <br />lots. He reviewed with staff the green/open space that is currently included in the plan. 121 <br /> 122 <br />Councilmember Ruhland said he is not in favor of the smaller lots. The Lennar 123 <br />representative asked for clarification – is it just the 45 lot size the council opposes or any 124 <br />reduction in size? The representative added that there have been many impacts on the 125