Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Bauer questioned how many lots would be within the development if the project was <br />low -density residential. <br />Mr. stated the project was originally 150+ lots and was scaled down to 132 lots. <br />However, after hearing from the neighbors this project was reduced even further to 101 lots. He <br />explained the project did not work financially with 80 foot lots as this would only yield 70 to 80 <br />lots. <br />Leslie Clark, 15150 Kangaroo Street, asked if Paxmar would be willing to keep the 80-foot <br />property width for the homes that will abut the existing neighborhood. She explained she did not <br />have a large number of trees in her rear yard and was hoping she wouldn't have to look into a wall <br />of homes. <br />Jan Groth, 15240 Kangaroo Street, commented the second proposal seemed a fit better given the <br />size of the adjacent lots. She understood that the field would be built on at some point in the future, <br />but stated the parcel was not zoned for 65-foot lots. <br />A <br />Community Development Director Gladhill understood PUD requirements and density transition <br />were issues that still needed to be addressed by the City. <br />Commissioner Anderson questioned if the developer would consider having 80-foot lots adjacent <br />to the existing homes. <br />Mr. stated on the east side of the development he could support having 80-foot <br />lots if this would gain him neighborhood support. It was noted this would reduce the project by <br />three lots. <br />Ms. Clark explained she opposed the development having townhome units on small lots. She <br />stated her biggest concern was the need for a buffer or transition area between the new <br />development and existing homes. <br />Ms. Kruger agreed a buffer between the two neighborhoods was key. <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked if any of the diagrams presented this evening met the Council's <br />requests. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill stated the Council has not seen the most recent <br />scenario with the wider and deeper lots. <br />Commissioner VanScoy stated he could not support a PUD at this time as he was not understanding <br />the benefits to the City from the proposed project. <br />Mr. explained the benefits were the neighborhood would have covenants <br />that would ensure high quality homes and building materials. In addition, he could dictate which <br />