Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Van Scoy stated that the proposal would meet the cluster requirements if the lots <br /> ..... d movino 177th south and increasing <br />were developed in the center of tke parcel H~ also sugge~ = <br />the distance between the new homes and the existing homes. <br />Ms. Wald noted that platting the lots on the boundary is more conducive to orderly resubdivision <br />in the future; City Council approved the sketch plan with the lots on the east boundary. The <br />alignment of 177th is per Staff's direction. <br /> Commissioner Bauer presented aerials of the area with the plat superimposed on them and stated <br /> that he doesn't feel the density transifioning on the east property line is adequate, especially for <br /> the northerly 3 lots. There 2 existing homes that will have 6 new homes adjacent to them. <br /> Commissioner Bauer noted that another option for density transitioning in City Code is matching <br /> densities on the common boundary. <br /> Ms. Wald noted that to her knowledge the City has never required developers to do matching <br /> densities on common boundaries to achieve density transitioning. <br /> Commissioner Bauer stated he can't recall the City ever approving a plat with a density of 3 to 1 <br /> on the common boundary. This site is the most challenging he has seen in his years on the <br /> Commission. <br /> Ms. Wald stated that Shade Tree could reconsider the plat design and place the homes to the <br /> interior of the site but now they are dealing with the time clock for the moratorium commencing. <br /> MotioR.by Chairperson Nixt and seconded by Commissioner Levine to adjourn the public <br /> hearing. The public hearing adjourned at 7:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business: <br />Motion by Commissioner Levine and seconded by Commissioner Van Scoy to recommend that <br />City Council deny the preliminary plat of Shade Tree Creek based on the following reasons: 1) <br />the lack of sufficient landscaping to address density transifionLng concerns; 2) the location of the <br />proposed lots are incompatible with the existing lots and; 3) the public safety concerns related to <br />single-access neighborhoods. <br /> Motion carried. Voting Yes: Commissioners Brauer, Hunt, Levine, Cleveland, and Trites Rolle. <br /> Voting No: Chairperson Nixt and Commissioner Van Scoy. Absent: None. <br /> Chairperson Nixt stated that although he agrees with the outcome of the motion, he opposed it <br /> because the cluster ordinance is on the books and in his opinion, technicalities are not sufficient <br /> grounds for denial. <br /> Commissioner Van Scoy stated that he feels that the City has boxed the developer into aposition <br /> where he can't make it work. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 24, 2006 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> <br />-171- <br /> <br /> <br />