Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />October 26, 2017 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Mr. Hempel stated the parkland would be dedicated for use as a public park. He also stated that the developer is <br />proposing to install trails and sidewalk connections to tie into existing infrastructure in adjacent developments. <br />He discussed the trail connection made from the development to the park and stated the developer is looking at <br />other trail connections, specifically along the northern portion of the park area. <br />Leitz stated that the proposed park is located within the City’s greenway corridor, which is called out to have <br />significant natural resources. She also described the neighborhood area parks service areas, which does have <br />this area as a location needing a large City park. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked if Frog Hollow Park was close to this location. <br />Leitz described that Frog Hollow Park is located just to the southeast of the development and is a small pocket <br />park. <br />Commissioner Tjernlund asked staff about the zoning and land use of surrounding properties and if the <br />products, lot sizes, and lot widths would be compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. <br />Juba stated that the adjacent properties are all zoned low and medium density residential. She described some of <br />the different product types found in the adjacent developments and how those had been constructed in both <br />straight zoning and Planned Unit Developments. She stated that where the developer is proposing to abide by <br />straight R-3 zoning mimics Prairie Village, which was also constructed with R-3 zoning requirements. <br />Commissioner Tjernlund asked for further explanation on the density requirements. <br />Juba stated that low density residential requires a minimum of 2 units per acre and medium density residential <br />requires a minimum of 3 units per acre. She stated that the park is within the medium density residential area, <br />which is why the development is not meeting density requirements. She stated with a PUD, the developer can <br />combine the minimum density for the land uses. She also explained that the Met Council approved the City’s <br />Comprehensive Plan which describes the preservation of a greenway corridor. She believes the City can work <br />with the developer to make the density work for the project. <br />Commissioner Tjernlund asked if there are high quality trees within the proposed parkland area. <br />Mr. Hempel stated that they have not completed a tree survey for the property. <br />Commissioner McRoberts inquired as to the natural resources being preserved on the property. <br />Mr. Hempel stated that the wetlands and open space within the greenway corridor is being preserved through <br />their design efforts. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked the engineer to explain the layout of the different product types. <br />Mr. Hempel stated that the property has high ground water and that has dictated the product types shown on the <br />site. He described the villas being constructed as slab on grade and the single family homes being constructed <br />with full basements. <br />Commission McRoberts asked the engineer to explain the reasoning of putting a small amount of villa homes in <br />the southeast corner, away from the rest of the housing products shown in the development. <br />Mr. Hempel stated that the City wanted to see a street connection to the adjacent parcel to the east. In doing <br />that, the developer was able to conceptualize a couple more lots. He stated that those lots may change based on <br />comments received from the various Commissions and Council.