Agenda - Council - 02/22/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Milt Wisheld, 15407 Nowthen BouleVard, ?eViewed the history of the easement along Potassium Street, and explained the owner at that time did inet want to be included in the easement needed to put the road in. He stated now is the time:to square that away and have the developer provide 33 feet of the new road; the developer is :the one that will benefit by all of this and there is no reason not to cough up some of the roadWay. Regarding the PUD zoning, there should be a reason to change the zoning from R, 1 to. PUD. This plan would maximize the developer's profits, but he questions what the:benefit is :to the City and the property owners that live there now. He stated there is no reason'to change .this from an R-1 to a PUD to enhance the developer's pocket. It is the C0tincil's responsibility to minimize traffic and to minimize the population density. If the City were to allow developer' s in all of the R-1 areas to rezone them to PUD it will be a lot worse and theY will be getting into some trouble in the furore. Mr. Johnson stated the map showS:units 45 iand46 butted right up to the road. A survey was just completed last week and his property extends 20 feet to the west beyond the road. ; Michael Nixt, resident at 6010 Radium Circle and Chair of the Planning Commission, noted between the time of the Planning CommiSsion meeting and now the density in this plan has increased. He stated as~ they look at developing and expanding and pushing the MUSA further north, there will be development :0pp0rmnities like this further north. As the City looks at the use of a PUD for this particular location, they have the duty to look at how it is being utilized. He reviewed the PUD Code, hig~ighting the :pOrtions that require the development to have a design compatible with the sun'ounding land use~ and that the proposal not have a detrimental affect on surrounding property. He stated about four of five the 13 factors for a PUD are absent from this development. If this development is allowed to go forward as R-1 without a PUD the development would, likely have a potentialiof 1Site 16 units based on the net density, possibly slightly higher, but not 53 units. When comparing that with the street immediately adjacent to this development it does not seem to be the: appropriate type of development, nor does it warrant a PUD for this process. In additiOn, the open s. pace needs have not been addressed, which he believes are 10 percent. The bottom line i~ ~ the City looks at how they use the PUD process going forward from R-1 they have a duty to set the table properly for how it will be used going forward. There will be more of these eom~g forth as developers try to find a way to maximize their yield and he hopes the Count:il will gix;ethat Consideration tonight. Mayor Gamec indicated the comments from the public and the letter received by the residents with the 23 points to consider will be includedas part of the record. Associate Planner Wald requested the Council provide direction regarding the concept of the plan regarding the detached single family units, open space, greenspace, density, amenities in the area, and the road configuration. She explained if the Council generally likes the detached single family homes staff will work withthe details )fthe PUD. citY Coun~iLtJanuary 25, 2005 Page :9, of 24 },