Laserfiche WebLink
-172- <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer noted that what the residents need to understand is if a developer comes in <br />and says this is how I want it, Staff cannot change that unless it breaks the law, which this does <br />not. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if the cul-de-sac length would require a variance. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald stated they could deal with the deviation as part of the PUD. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated when they have granted variances on cul-de-sac length in the past, he <br />does not think there was so much density. <br /> <br />Associate Plarmer Wald noted that Alpine Meadows has a cul-de-sac about this length and has <br />higher density,. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he sees the cul-de-sac issue as very. problematic.- He indicated while this <br />is not subject to transitioning requirements, they can still require that as part.of a PUD, and what <br />is surrounding this is one house on ten-acre lots. He stated they cannot assume those other lots <br />will be developed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated he does not see a reason for a PUD. He asked if there is a reason <br />besides density. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated he sees the use of a PUD as a density increase or a means of <br />developing a challenging site. He stated that is why he said at the last meeting that he wanted to <br />see this as an R-1 development, and then he would be willing to look at a PUD because it 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 Commissioner Van Scoy, to deny the preliminary plat <br />and the site plan roi' the f'ollowing reasons: <br /> i. The cul-de-sac length is too long. <br /> 2. Traffic concerns. " <br /> <br /> 3. There is uncct~tainty regarding Potassium Street, and resolution could impact the <br /> development. <br /> 4. There are density transitioning concerns. <br /> 5. And, outstanding issues raised itt the City StaffReview Letter. <br /> <br />Motion cmTied. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Van Scoy, Brauer, Levine, <br />Shepherd, and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Case#6 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 Hearing <br /> <br />Planning Co,mnission/April 7, 2005 <br /> Page 15 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />