Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Associate Planner Daines stated for anything to be proposed other than what code allows it <br />would essentially have to be a PUD. Short of that, this parcel is very limited in what can be <br />done. This is why staff has allowed the 45 foot right-of-way instead of the 60 foot right-of-way; <br />it would be a shared right-of-way with the future properties to the north. Ms. Daines stated any <br />road through a property will lower the developable area, but it is also required in City Code that <br />there be a public street through all developments. The Planning Commission liked the sketch <br />plan that was brought forward, so staff moved forward with this application; there are actually 4 <br />or 5 less units than the sketch plan called out due to the revision for the public road. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine expressed concern regarding the future road running through the adjacent <br />properties, using up almost 1/3 of buildable property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if there is a viable alternative for the road. He noted when this <br />was reviewed by the Commission previously there was concern about the properties to the north. <br />He questioned if the current accesses would be grandfathered in with the additional homes and <br />traffi c in this area. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied the County's position is that an existing access that may have <br />just one unit, or in some cases no units, being served is not the same as an access being used by <br />multiple units. The County's position has been that new development allows them a chance to <br />review the accesses. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy commented he does not see the County determining that four accesses <br />will be reasonable. He stated he shares the concerns about this whole area. He does not see an <br />alternative to having a road go through the entire property however it is developed. He noted <br />putting the road to the back of the lots would actually take up more space than putting the road <br />along Nowthen Boulevard and sharing the right-of-way in order to minimize the impact on the <br />properties. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cleveland inquired if there was discussion regarding the ingress and egress when <br />this area was rezoned to R-2. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik replied the rezoning only addresses land use; <br />minor streets like this would not be pre-established in the plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer noted this area was rezoned to R-2 because Nowthen Boulevard is such a <br />major street that single family homes on the street did not make sense. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cleveland noted with the Commission's discussion of this sketch plan <br />Commissioner Johnson commented that there were too many units, and there was concern <br />regarding the size of the units. The Commission liked the concept of the land being developed. <br />She indicated she does not think this development is the proper use of a PUD. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated this is a challenging site. Even with medium density it does not assure <br />this level of units if this is developed as R-2. He does not see how they can get 7, or even 5 units <br />on this site. There is not an alternative to tie this into the other street unless there is a provision <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 1, 2006 <br />Page 6 of19 <br />