Agenda - Council - 05/10/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AssoCiate Planner Wald stated it is, with the parcel being 28 acres, but only 15.4 acres of upland. Chairperson Nixt clarified that they could potentially have done 34 lots in standard.R ..-~1..i.. layout, so a PUD is a better use for this parcel- Chairperson Nixt stated he does not like the road, but does not know what to do-~about it. Commissioner Van Scoy asked if they had considered moving the stru~es next.-to the other homes rather th~ the road. Associate Pla~er Wald stated Staff feels that is more of an impad~'/and the elevation differences. Mr. Napier commented that in an R-1 layout, the units..W;u~ likely ~e .much taller than the~s ":~ .... -7(::' ";~?- :-7.?'. '" e Tom Greenburg, 6032 157th Lane, stated his lot is Lot 4.' H.e m&cated h would have t~ee streets su=ounding his prope~. He stated he has lived ~erb:'26,-years, and realistically ~ew ~at someday the open space would get developed. He stated he nbver ~magin~ there would be a PUD development behind his house..j.He :indicated he always fel~ :a-P~''~kas a way to have lower cost, lower stand=d ho~ing N~RamSeYJ--.'He stated he underst~d}':it will not be low cost, but it does not seem appropfiate-ne~t td his de~d0oment. He indicktea he undemtands it is'not against the law, but is disappointing n0n~'.the'less. He stated he:appreciates the concern being shown, and the good issues being raised. He co~'ented he maxtor be happy with the decision, but asksfor the best ~e Pla~ing Co~ission c~get. Commissioner Brau~~h0ted ~' road has been-moved aw~y from Mr. Greenburg's lot a little, and ~ked if ~is is aa~mprovemenk:} Mr. Greenburg stated the ~7.p[ap_.~id ng} Mve bens or tre~s, ~d, he g)e~s, es .?? ~ou}d be be~er. He stated- ~ere .W~l:'be:-mrsgoing h'ght at the edge of his bac~yara, me aooeo ne nas a walk-out, and his basemefit wilI be five fe~t lower than the new units. '+-:Ms. Pic~hrdt'Ndica{ed '~.h~_:-~ issue with densi~. She stated articles in the paper make a ~?? note that Ramse~'h~ the lowestPercentage of high-end homes in the county, and wondered why they were ~in :to, add m'°Z~¢~ She asked why they could not put sNgle-family one-acre lots' in ~- '/.... the same space. --~. Hampton stated one thing that concerns him is not only does this development have ~e City take Ns land ~dnot give him an~hing for it and assess him for water and sewer, but they will build'~'~e crappy houses and I'll lose money on my l~d. Motion bY Chai~erson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Brauer to close the public hearing. -226- Planning Commission/April 7, 2005 Page 19 of 23