Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2007

Home

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-1 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 sUlrounding 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 -1 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 livelliving in a detached townhome. Associate Planner DaInes stated for anything to be proposed other than what code allows it would essentially have to be a PUD. Short of that, this parcel is very limited in what can be done. This is why staffhas allowed the 45 foot right-of-way instead of the 60 foot right-of-way; it would be a shared right-of-way with the future properties to the north. Ms. DaInes stated any road through a property will lower the developable area, but it is also required in City Code that there be a public street through all developments. The Planning Commission liked the sketch plan that was brought forward, so staff moved forward with this application; there are actually 4 or 5 less units than tlle sketch plan called out due to the revision for the public road. Commissioner Levine expressed concern regarding the future road running through the adjacent properties, using up almost 1/3 of buildable property. Commissioner VanScoy asked if there is a viable alternative for the road. He noted when this was reviewed by the Commission previously there was concern about the properties to the north. He questioned if the current accesses would be grandfathered in with the additional homes and traffic in this area. City Engineer Jankowski replied the County's position is that an existing access that may have just one unit, or in some cases no units, being served is not the same as an access being used by multiple units. The County's position has been that new development allows them a chance to review the accesses. 17