Laserfiche WebLink
Milt Wisheld, 15407 Nowthen BO¢levard~ reviewed the history of the easement along Potassium <br />Street, and explained the owner a~(that tim~ :did inot want to be included in the easement needed <br />to put the road in. He stated nowis the tim?it° ~uare that away and have the developer provide <br />33 feet of the new road; the deV°[oper~iS the,;0ne::that Will benefit by all of this and there is no <br />reason not to cough up some of; .the roadway~ iRegarding the PUD zoning, there should be a <br />reason to change the zoning fi.om R,l~tO! PUD. This. plan would maximize the developer's <br />profits, but he questions what the bcnefit~ .~ ~t0 ~e city and the property owners that live there <br />now. He stated there is no red,on:tO Ch~ar~g4~this from an R-1 to a PUD to enhance the <br />developer's pocket. It is the COUncil's re~rk4ibility to minimize traffic and to minimize the <br />population density. If the City Wale: to all~ide~etoper's in all of the R-1 areas to rezone them to <br />PUD it will be a lot worse and they wiilbe getting into Some trouble in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson stated the map show_S!unitS :45 'and 46 butted right up to the road. A survey was just <br />completed last week and his proP¢~ exten~Is 2'0 ;feet to the west beyond the road. <br />Michael Nixt, resident at 6010 :,~'adium Circle :and Chair of the Planning Commission, n°ted <br />between the time of the Planning' Commii~i0n!meeting and now the density in this plan has <br />increased. He stated as they look[ at devel~[~ing and expanding and pushing' the MUSA further <br />north, there will be developmentipppo?turdtie~ ijke this further north. As the City looks at the <br />use of a PUD for this particular :location~.~e,y)have the duty to look at how it is being utilized. <br />He reviewed the PUD Code, high, lighting ithei portions that require the development to have a <br />design compatible with the surrOtmding 1 ~ag~' ~ ~us~e, and that the proposal not have a detrimental <br />affect on surrounding property. ~e. stated about four of five the 13 factors for a PUD are absent <br />from this development. If this deYelopment,:is allowed to go forward as R-1 without a PUD the <br />development would likely have aipotential: 0fil5:to 16 units based on the net density, possibly <br />slightly higher, but not 53 units. When comparing that with the street immediately adjacent to <br />this development it does not seem to be:lhO, appropriate type of development, nor does it warrant <br />a PUD for this process. In additi~on, itlie:OP~n Space needs have' not been addressed, which he <br />believes are 10 percent. The b ~ott. 0m line:is..as~ the City looks at'how they use the PUD process <br />going forward from R-i they have a duty:to '.set ithe table properly for how it will be used going <br />forward. There will be more of ~ese:COming forth as developers try to find a way to maximize <br />their yield and he hopes the CoUn~!l Witl:gi96that consideration tonight. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec indicated the comments from :the public and the letter received by the residents <br />with the 23 points to consider will ;be inCladed aS'Part of the record. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Weld requesta~ the council lprovide direction regarding the concept of the <br />plan regarding the detached single! familyffits, OPen space, greenspace, density, amenities in the <br />area, and the road configuration. :,She eXPlained if the Council generally likes the detached single <br />family homes staff will work with lhe details of the PUD. <br /> <br />C*ty Coun~e~l/january 25,. 2005 <br /> :' ~aig~ 9 of 24 <br /> <br />P25 <br /> <br /> <br />