Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Braner noted that what the residents need to understand is ifa 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 staled 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 I'lanncr Wald re)ted that Alpine Meadows has a cul-de-sac about this length and has <br />higher density. <br /> <br />Chairpers¢>n Nixt stated hc sees the cul-de-sac issue as'very problematic. He indicated while this <br />is not sub.}cct to transitiolfing requirements, they can still require that as part of a P.UD, and what <br />is snrrounding this is one house on ten-acre lots. He stated they cannot assume those other lots <br />will be developed. <br /> <br />Comlnissicmer Van Scoy stated he does not see a reason for a PUD. He asked if there is a reason <br />besictes density. <br /> <br />Ch. airl)crst)n Nixt indicated he sees the use of a PUD as a density increase or a means of <br />developing a challenging site. tqe stated that is why he said at the last meeting that he wanted to <br />sec this as an R-1 clevelopn~ent, and then he would be willing to look at a PUD because it is a <br />somewhat challenging site. }Ie added that he would only consider a PUD at an R-1 density. He <br />stated thc site is challenging because of its toPography, but developing it as R-1 would alleviate <br />thc trat'tlc concerns, alld shorten the cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairpersol~ Nixt. seconded by Commissioner Van Scoy, to deny the preliminary plat <br />and thc site plan for the rolls,wing reasons: <br /> 1. Thc cul-de-sac length is too long. <br /> 2. '['raf'[ic concert~s. <br /> 3. 'I'hcre is unCCl'tainty regarding Potassium Street, and resolution could impact the <br /> development. <br /> 4. ~l'herc 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: Commissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Case #6 <br /> <br />Public Hearing - Request to Rezone Property from R-1 Single Family <br />Residential to Pl',mned Unit Development; Case of National Growth, LLC <br /> <br />Public Ilearing <br /> <br />I~h~ nning Commission/April 7, 2005 <br /> Page 15 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />