Minutes - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006

Home

September last year; the previous owner asked for a variance to go back to the old ordinance and build 8 units, which the Commission rejected based on the square footage of the lot being buildable for 6 units. He purchased the lot from Ben Deemer based on that value of 6 units. Now this plan has been submitted with the street running through the middle of his land, and he would probably only get 3 units; this will reduce the value of his land by 50%. He feels the way this is being planned by the City is really trying to take away his rights; he has two approaches on Nowthen Boulevard, and he thinks the objective of this cul-de-sac is to take away both of his accesses. This is on the verge of being a little illegal. He would have no alternative but to sue if his land is de-valued by 50%. Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Van Scoy, to close the public hearing. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Van Scoy, Brauer, Cleveland, Hunt, Levine, and Trites Rolle. Voting No: None. Absent: None. The public hearing closed at 7:24 p.m. Commission Business Chairperson Nixt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at 7:24 p.m. Chairperson Nixt noted staff is generally recommending approval of this application. The Commission has had discussions about the concept of a townhome for a PUD development, and the ordinance has not been revised to deal with issues that have been raised. He is in general agreement with Mr. Deemer; there is no provision in R-l that permits single family, so the only way to move forward with this development is through a PUD. He does not see a lot in his personal opinion that supports this particular land use in this area. He is looking to staff to share why they feel this is a good use of this area in light of the opposition from adjacent landowners and the potential future development of this site. Associate Planner DaInes outlined the following in relation to requirements for consideration of a PUD: In relation to the compatible use with the surrounding area, staff looked at this use as a middle ground and as compatible land use. They will not necessarily put single family homes right on the highway, and this is adjacent to R-2 townhomes, yet it is also adjacent to single family homes. Townhomes are allowed in R-2, but the detached units might be a little more of an easy transition for the R-I single family neighbors to the east. In relation to open space preservation, this use meets the 50% requirement. In relation to consideration of natural resources, staff is requesting if this application is approved that the applicant provides better consideration of the existing wooded areas. In relation to a wider range of housing types, prices and styles, this is where the applicant best meets the intent of the PUD; this site would allow unique housing styles: one livel living in a detached townhome. Planning Commission/June 1,2006 Page 5 of 19