Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Brauer noted that what the residents need to understand is if a developer comes in <br />and says this is how [ want it, Staff cannot change that unless it breaks the law, which this does <br /> got. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if the cul-de-sac length would require a variance. ,~.:;'~!!i?i?' <br />Associate Planner Wald stated they could deal with the deviation as part of <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated when· they have granted variances on cul-d~Siic length in~ asr, he <br />does not think there was so much density. .~:;.~ ~'~,, <br /> ~¢i:: .~::.'~':: 2., ? 2- <br />Assocmte Planner Wald no ed that Alpine Meadows has a c~!5.de-sac,~bout this length and <br />higher density. :~i-!!i? ;' '~' <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he sees the cul-de-sac issue as:'~ problem~fid}..He indicated while this <br />is not subject to transitioning requirements, they can:::itill:require th~¢ii§::~ of. a PUD, and what <br />is surrounding this is one house' on ten-acre lots2 He stated ~?~ot assume thoie other lots <br />will be developed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated he does lot see a reason for a pUD. '~;as~e~fif there is a reason <br />besides density. . .. :- <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated he Sees the~ use of a pUD as;a d~nsity increase or a means of <br />developing a challenging site. He stated that is wh~'5'h~ said'-ilt ~ last meeting that he wanted to <br />see this as an R-1 development, and then h~.would be willing' to look at a PUD because ~t is a <br />somewhat challenging site. He added that he'would only consider a PUD at an R-1 density. He <br />stated the site is challenging because of its topography, but developing it as R-1 would alleviate <br />the traffic concerns, and shorten the cul-de-saC:' -".?:: <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by CS~issioner Van Scoy, to deny the preliminary plat <br />and the site plan for the fOllowing reas°ns':.:"!i <br /> 1. The cul-de-sac Iength is too long. <br /> 2. Traffic concerns._. <br /> 3. There is uncertainty regarding Potassium Street, and resolution could impact the <br /> development. <br /> 4. There are' density transitioning concerns. <br /> 5. And, outstanding issues raised in the City Staff Review Letter. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Van Scoy, Brauer, Levine, <br />Shepherd, and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Cornmissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Case//6 <br /> <br />Public Hearing - Request to Rezone Property from R-1 Single Family <br />Residential to Planned Unit Development; Case of National Growth, LLC <br /> <br />Public ltearing <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 7, 2005 <br /> Page 15 of 23 <br /> <br />-273- <br /> <br /> <br />