Minutes - Council - 01/25/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to put the road in. He stated now'is the time to square that away and have the developer provide 33 fcet 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. ~egarding 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. Hc stated there is no reason to change: this from an R-1 to a PUD to enhance the devclopcr's pocket. It is the Council'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 il will be a lot worse and they will be getting into some trouble in the future. Mr. Johnson stated the map shows units 45 and z~6 butted right up to the road. A survey was just completed last week and his property extends 201 feet to the west beyond the road. Michacl Nixt, resident at 6010 Radium Circle and Chair of the Planning Commission, noted betwecn the time of the Planning Commission meeting and now the density in this plan has increased. He stated as they look at developing dand expanding and pushing the MUSA further north, there will be development Opportunities like this further north. As the City looks at the use of a PUD for this particular location, ihey have the duty to look at how it is being utilized. lie reviewed the PUD Code, highlighting :the portions that require the development to have a design compatible with the surrounding 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 fi'om this development. If this development iS allowed to go forward as R-1 without a PUD the development would likely have a potential of 151 to 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 appro~Priate type of development, nor does it warrant a ?UD for this process. In addition, the open ~Pace needs have not been addressed, which he believes are 10 percent. The bottom line is as the City looks at how they use the PUD process going [brward fi'om R-1 they have a duty t° set the table properly for how it will be used going forward. There will be more of these coming ~f0rth as developers try to find a way to maximize their yield and be hopes the Council willgive.that!consideration tonight. Mayor Gamec indicated the commentS from the ipublic and the letter received by the residents with the 23 points to consider will be included as 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 i~ the Council generally likes the detached single faro i I y h o roes s taft will work with the details of the PUD. Councilmember Elvig indicated his suggestion would be to eliminate approximately 30 percent of' the units. They should be replaced with a larger sized and quality unit that would be sold at a higher price. Councihncmber Strommen concurred. She explained she does not necessarily have a problem with thc detached townhomes, but she does have a problem with this whole development and City CounCil/January 25, 2005 Bage 9 Of 24