10-17-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SL -I r: Class III - ctober 10, 1988 it required for iccess corridor >ne residential r 1.18 acres. lotions 6 cted on by the itioned on the without appeal s enclosed the »n current code .th ordinances tm mm f m ' v'l i^aiiliis ■ v^l • ■ ..<ai Zoning File #1334 October 13, 1988 Page 2 of 7 As discussed at our most recent Planning Commission meeting on October 3rd, members were advised that an informal meeting was scheduled for October 4th with the developer to discuss the many concerns noted by members regarding the layout of the subdivision and the PRD format. Please review Exhibit B, the letter to Bob Kost that reviewed the issues discussed by those in attendance at that meeting (Chairman Kelley, Co-chair Bellows, Sara Moos, Glenn Cook, Bob Kost and Jeanne Mabusth). In reviewing the revised plan, it would appear that Mr. Kost has fulfilled all of the requests of those in attendance at the meeting. In a recent discussion with Mr. Kost, he advised that it would be impossible to complete his complete survey of all 8" or greater diameter trees within each pad, each building site, and a recommendation for floor area ratio. Kost has promised that by your meeting night that he will have an analysis of 3 building pads and a recommendation concerning the floor area ratio limits for each pad. Staff selected 3 pads or lots for special conideration by that meeting. If you review your original plan, staff selected Lot 8, Block 1, Lots 2 and 6, Block 3. These lots were specifically selected because of special grade considerations and appeared to have extensive tree coverage. The following requested changes have been included within the revised plans: 1. No grading/woodland preservation areas have been extended into the 30 to 50* setback zones of the lots. 2. The cul-de-sac road has been replaced with a loop road. As noted at the meeting, this plan satisfies the maximum grade allowance of 12% for vertical control. 3. Access remains in the original approved location providing adequate sighting distance for the 30 MPH speed limit. Staff had met with the applicant prior to the preliminary hearing to discuss the need to change the original access location. The applicant was advised to either move it further to tha r.nrth to the top of the hill or further south. The applicant suggested moving it further south because it would provide less impact for the neighboring rural property owners on the east side and the property owner most impacted on the north. 4. The open space outlet for the trail connects new to Pine Ridge Lane. The City is not interested in acquiring public trail rights through the defined path trails of the residential subdivision. This would not be consistent: with other Planned Residential Developments developed under the current standards that provide no "performance benefits." The only benefit provided an applicant under our current PRD is that they do not have to follow the conventional mode of development. There are no density benefits given to any developer under the current PRD code. J r