HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0182 Staff AnalysisIF
Cj
f
September 15, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Addendum
OWNER/APPLICANT:
EXISTING ZONING:
LOCATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
SIZE: 19 acres +
,7,0 /gz
Warren Mercer
"R-2" Single Family
North of Cantrell Road near Reservoir
Park
Heavily wooded steep slopes
REQUEST:
This item is placed before the Planning Commission for an
extension of time on the PUD.
e4T? TTTTT ,'%XT 11r%%Rhfi'rM "" T llmTr%WT _
The Committee voted to approve this item by a vote of 4 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSI.ON ACTION:
A motion for a one year extension of the PUD application was made
and approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
August 12, 1980
Item No. 10 - Z-3506
Owner:
Applicant:
Request:
Purpose:
Existing Zoning:
Location:
Site Characteristics:
Size:
Existing Land Use:
Abutting Land Use
and Zoning:
Zoning History:
Applicable Regulations:
STAFF COMMENT:
Warren Mercer
Warren Mercer
Rezone to "PRD" Planned Residential
Development District
Residential Planned Unit Development
for 27 Units
"R-2" Single Family
North off Cantrell Near
Reservoir Park
Heavily Wooded, Steep Slopes
19 Acres +
Vacant
North - Vacant
Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family
Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant and Commercial
Zoned "R-2" and "C-3"
West - Single Family and Vacant
Zoned "R-2"
None
Zoning Ordinance
Staff has reviewed the proposal under the development criteria
established within the Ordinance and finds that the project
proposed meets the requirements with the exception of the
specification that topographic information be shown with two foot'
contours. The applicant has chosen to use five foot contour
intervals because of the significant slope within the site.
Staff finds this to be a reasonable choice.
The density of the development proposed is quite low, less than
1.5 units per acre. The quality of the development stated by the
applicant seems appropriate for the neighborhood. An exceptional
amount of natural open space will remain following development of
the site, computed at 77 percent of the property by the
designers.
IW
August 12, 1980
Item No. 10 - Continued
No adverse comments have been received from neighboring property
owners. Site plan review by the Planning Commission is scheduled
for July 31.
Staff fully supports this PUD development concept and believes
that this site is particularly attractive for this proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the PUD with the condition that the
site plan approval is granted.
COMMISSION ACTION - July 29, 1980:
The applicant was present and described the proposed project in
great detail and discussed the rationale for approaching this
development in the manner proposed. There were no opponents
present. There were, however, a few neighboring property owners
who raised a number of questions and discussed the project both
with the Planning Commission and with the applicant. After a
lengthy discussion, the Commission moved to approve the
application with the condition that site plan approval be granted
a future meeting. The motion was approved - 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3
absent and 1 abstention. (George Wittenber abstained citing
conflict of interest.)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of PUD Site Plan and Plat/with changes:
1. The plat to reflect two lots (separate for house).
2. Move pool use area.
3. Access drive to be on west one-half of access lot and + 251,
from the west line.
4. Access to Cantrell to be perpendicular.
5. Access drive to be 24' pavement in a 45' easement which
may be modified in width to accommodate design.
6. Preparation of final plat to be filed for record.
The vote - 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstaining (George
Wittenberg).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Approval as recommended by the Subdivision Committee except that
the plat be allowed as 3 lots. The vote - 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4
IV absent and 1 open position.