Laserfiche WebLink
Planned- Unit - Developments require 50% private or 20% public space. It appears as <br />though the proposal meets the 50% private open space requirement. There are no specific <br />public amenities or public open spaces proposed with this development. <br />Preservation of Natural Amenities and Scenic Qualities <br />There are no natural amenities or scenic qualities to this site. <br />Associate Planner Dalnes advised the PUD zoning option is designed to allow flexibility <br />in land development to encourage housing affordability, new techniques in building <br />design, efficient use of public infrastructure, energy conservation, preservation of <br />desirable land characteristics, and/or mixed -use development. It is Staff's opinion that <br />the intent of the PUD is not met by the request. However, the only viable method for <br />achieving 5 lots on this property is through the PUD process due to the overage in <br />density. Ms. Dalnes stated the City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the <br />sketch plan for this development. Both bodies have indicated that the applicant work to <br />achieve a development that meets the single- family density. However, the Planning <br />Commission also suggested the use of a PUD to accommodate smaller lot sizes. Ms. <br />Dalnes stated given the direct comments from both the Planning Commission and City <br />Council, and given the requirements in City Code regarding the use of the PUD, staff <br />does not support this rezoning for the sole purpose to achieve 5 lots on the site. <br />Citizen Input <br />Chairperson Nixt requested the applicant to respond with any counter comments to staff s <br />analysis and the City's attempt to work with the applicant to accomplish the proposed <br />development of the site. <br />Mr. Tom Rollings, CBR Development, stated he does not know that he has counter <br />comments, other than that he originally came to the City with a 10 -unit townhome <br />development, which is what they had earmarked and purchased this site for. Obviously <br />with the turnout that evening, the majority of the people were in opposition to that <br />particular plan. Taking the Commission's response under advisement he attended a <br />Council work session and was advised to bring this in under a PUD and to bring back a 5 <br />lot development. Their original intent was for 10 units. It was not to try to stuff as many <br />homes in as possible, it was to try to make the project work. Five units was quite a step <br />back, and they are asking if there are other minor adjustments they can make to <br />accommodate or come closer. Taking this to four units does not work. They could not <br />produce at that and would have to step away and review the project. He knows they are <br />asking for a few adjustments, and they were trying to bring in higher quality housing for <br />the City. The Commission had suggested to bring in single level living and they are <br />attempting to accomplish that. He believes the staff report asked for various housing <br />choices, and they could accomplish that with two stories on one side or a few two stories. <br />They will accommodate however they can, but to take it back down to four is not a <br />project they could continue with. <br />Chairperson Nixt noted this has been a challenged site with the access and layout. <br />—255— <br />