Agenda - Council - 07/26/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. [Iampton questioned how long a 32-foot wide road would take care of traffic. She stated there are only l'our houses there now, and when all these people move in they will want a wider road. She indicated she and her husband want the road moved over so they do not have to worry about their front yard. Chairperson Nixt asked f'or clarification on the State Statute that determines road width. Associate l'lanncr ~Vald indicated the City has an affidavit that says they maintain 66-feet. She stated she would have to del'er to the City Attorney if they want to discuss it any further. Ms. I'lampton asked the Planning Commission not to continue with this case until this is established. Slue stated they have legal representation also. She indicated'she does not want to be conlk)ntational, but wants this resolved before this plan goes further. She commented this is a little dirt road. Chairperson Nixt statccl the issue was in the record and the Planning Commission will take that into crmsidcration when they make a recommendation. Ms. l-lampton Clttestioned what would happen if the developer kept going and put more money into this project until it was too late to stop it. She stated there is no way the City has maintained 66-feet el'road, at'K[ they emmet take that. Sara l'icldmrctt, 15751 l'otassiuin Street, stated she submitted the letter before the Planning Commission. Commissi()ncr Van Scoy asked Staff about the lots shown on the drawing, which were referred to in Ms. l'icl<harclt's letter. II¢ asked if' Staff was looking at a different definition of a lot because these arc lt)wnhol'llcs. Associate l'latmer Watd stated they are, noting that with townhomes the lot is usually the tbunclation, however: they draw boxes around it to make' it easier to record at the CoUnty. She indicated the proposal is meeting the townhouse size requirements, so it is not really lot size they 1.ook at, but building size. Ms. Pickard noted that in her point four, it should say nine units, not six. She indicated she also wants to note that concerning the street, residents were not allowed to have mail delivery or school bus service on the street because it is a private drive. She stated her letter refers to all four cases to bc presented, and other comments specifically address rezoning. Milt Wyshalt, 15407 Old Nowthen Boulevard, questioned how they could be at the preliminary plat stage when a preliminary sketch plan has not been approved. Chairpe~'st)n Nixt advised thc Planning Commission recommended denial of the sketch plan, which then went to the City Council for more feedback, and has now come back to the Planning Commission as a preliminat'y plat. Planning Commission/April 7, 2005 Page 12 of 23