HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016.07.18 CC PowerPoint Terre De L'eau Concept PlanExcelsior Group
Terre De LIeau
Sketch Plan
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Planning Commission Meeting
wv��
614
RLWAM
Im..
Description of Request
• The applicant is requesting review and comments
on a sketch plan for 296 residential lots on a 197.5
acre parcel.
• The density of the project is 2.5 units per acre.
• Comments are advisory only and non-binding.
• There are no approvals during this process.
Process
• Sketch Plan
• Next Steps
• Preliminary Applications
• Rezoning from R-3 to PUD
• PUD General Plan
• Preliminary Plat
• Following the preliminary approvals would bean
application for final plat of the first phase.
Environmental Review
•The minimum threshold for a mandatory
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is 250
units.
• The applicant is requesting 296 units, therefore an
EAW is required.
• Examples of items that are evaluated include:
• Land Use
• Water Resources
• Fish and Wildlife
• Transportation
• If the project moves forward, the applicant will
continue to work with the City staff in the EAW
Zoning Change
• A rezoning of the property from R-3 to PUD
• The developer stated they would be requesting a
PUD to allow flexibility on lot width, lot size, and
setbacks.
• In exchange, the City expects a higher level of
design and amenities within a project.
• The applicant has indicated that the project will
include landscaped streets, decorative lighting,
trails, a public park, and a stormwater reuse
system.
Sketch Plan
• The applicant is proposing a combination of
product types and lot widths listed below:
Product Type
Proposed
Lot Width
Proposed
No. of Lots
Villa Homes (maintenance provided)
45 feet
91
Detached TownhomeS (maintenance provided)
50 feet
51
Single Family Homes
65 feet
33
Single Family Homes
70 feet
60
Single Family Homes
90 feet
61
1
-f
_ d
• f �
., 777P�
t �i f iJi7th st N
5. � I+�I
r '
-NA A
\ -` � II � + 9♦ S /• ZF` {rit � + �, I :Ny. �= A"1
+flflf�)1
... . ......
.t I � �i d f 'i^ b f Yv� ";1 ,{ k .•.'v _ �' �'• �� Y
4` L Kia latrN Plnndsn s a
,
.I z
Tfl
� r
a
o "
oravFaParkl
.. ly' :ro.-°M`° w�ese "r"',. -.�. `•��'`'., _ .ice
u . Park
:
CONCEPT DATA
ZIA
df saac9 �" I
,
Sul
• tea. �}r ,. � ,' fF�t<' _ I `' a' it
t
r
<,- j;`."". ?r :' �}` I?I ��. hen I - r-thrxq.q��'a• f f — ,� dll i
4 f;> s i 4
e + - t t d3naFmNi 130th 5[N`f-Faint
Hath StN
k� {�Iv _ str
Ees� s.�ss.r.�E
kX _l._ �' _ �PL, y$C�{♦j
sm
t�
4
iiand �13Sth S1 N�"'.;'
MlaM, r
4 Kio�1a t rN
Ail`t
CONCEPT DATA
hh
IIll ,'
fr
,� - ) � ` 1 � "'—= l�k'•$�l iO.L ac gross � Wetlustl ', . ExMllngWelle na I :„ : F,
il! P drn.t 'i
k I sd � � k Fais[ingtVeNand �r )_.pU ��� 1'
'rf� b� u F ' F:,ncll¢i Y' t`1 1 � i� l y � �l.•jfll
�i a 3wkiiow 1 \
.� l > !' k. 1 _ x'.:>•wi>�-,fix-*. z' f\ y; I
A,
s � p
4 t [ J �..I! s A5
i d li
a
r : t na3oaFmNi _ - — 130th 5[ N _ _ - f d' - \•' i •..(
A cath at ha�jk4_'
are, R
ME
.
Ax, rr P �3 r ks/Trai I s
N
I'
J I,
f
} 11
r—g.
)F � FloadStmag
y
r
-
wdhno ��. r X — tlardmne" 4�. Fam:l
Diicl, – P eFltwY,�
e
Eai d
4� [`� `�� o C' '',, ii u..:�.n,.. I '�_—PlWd:a�ax -& 4. -. ✓'. � lm M1`. :.
P.m
PxM,� nn
y
ewe�lena
x
- I ., .F,. ; -• � h
CONCEPT DATA
L
is
•� ,j PXP Eeferncrrt _ - DMP kaxvnmt ,
' i.:� E Y Fais[ingtVetland .a u
x _
row.
i
b
I
t f k V14sal
Alt na�pamwt '% ,," WRA?,
y�
Ilk'
Parks Commission - July 13th
• In general the Parks Commission liked the proposal.
• They liked the trails within the development and
encouraged additional connections to the active park area.
• They stated they were comfortable with the active park
location but, would like to see a more contiguous park area.
• They encouraged the trail along the north side of 130th to be
constructed with the development.
• They stated they were comfortable with the use of the City
owned outlot .
• They thought the developer was on track with the park
dedication proposal.
• They stated that more analysis and discussion will need to
occur in regards to phasing of the trail and park
improvements.
Planning Commission —June 23rd
• In general the Commission liked the proposal.
• They were comfortable with the proposed lot sizes and
lot widths, but did have come concerns on the 45 foot
wide lots.
• They were comfortable with the use of the outlot.
• They stated that updates to 130th Street should be
completed with the proposed development.
• They had concerns on the long road connecting the
north and south ends of the development.
• They wanted significant landscape buffers along
Highway 61 and 130th Street.
Planning Commission —June 23rd
• There were five residents that spoke during the
meeting.
• Some residents voiced concerns on the following:
• The proposed density of the project.
• The proposed lot size and lot width
• Traffic
• Potential for cut -through traffic on 137th Street
• Additional traffic along 130th Street
• The location of stormwater ponds in relation to the
existing homes in regards to flooding, bugs, and odors.
• They wanted to ensure that the Commissions and City
Council kept the neighboring properties in mind during
the approval process.
Conclusion
• The applicant is proposing a creative and efficient
use of the property, while reducing impacts to the
natural features of the site.
• The applicant has done a good job with the
development layout and proposed added
amenities.
• The plan meets the intent of the comprehensive
plan in regards to land use, parks, and
transportation.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback
to the applicant on the following:
• Proposed lot size and lot width
• Proposed use of City 18 -acre outlot
• 130t" Street improvements to an urban section
road
• Proposed long roadway connecting the north and
south portions of the site
• Proposed landscape buffers along Highway 61 and
130t" Street