CCP 03-16-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ,...-..,.,.- :-.!~ r'>;., . ~ " Ls,:. J .~ J'-'\'.iil II I. Arden ffiU~ .f,lanninl!: Minutes Pai!e 9 03/01/95 I Commissioner Larson inquired if the intersection was too close to old Highway 10. Mr. I Fritsinger indicated the developer has exceeded the ordinance requirement. Commissioner Larson inquired as to the old oaks and their removal. Mr. Fritsinger indicated if . they are within the 66 foot easement there is a potential that they would be removed. Commissioner Larson inquired as to the diameter of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bergly indicated the I diameter would be 100 feet and could accommodate any snowplow. Mr. Ogren introduced Mr. Derek Passe, an engineer for the project. Mr. Passe indicated the room I available for the turning radius of up to a semi trailer in the cul-de-sac. Chair Erickson inquired for clarification, how R-1 designation relates to this development and I Special Use Permit versus a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Bergly indicated the R-1 district is an underlying zoning district, and there are overlay districts such as the PUD that applies in addition to the R-1 regulations. The Special Use Permit is provided to allow the City to look at I projects with a little more scrutiny. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a special, Special Use Permit procedure and it allows special design criteria in addition to an ordinary Special Use .- Permit. The PUD requires review of these items. Mr. Bergly indicated this site has been shown in the Comprehensive Plan as both an open space I land use, and the park plan shows this as open space for development. There also is another map in the Comprehensive Plan which shows this site as a developable single family R-1 area. He indicated there are contradictions in the Comprehensive Plan that have to be cleared up. I Chair Erickson inquired under the categories listed under the R-1 district, how is this site identified. Mr. Bergly indicated, it is considered a Planned Unit Development, which is a Single I Family under the density zoning. It could be treated as a two family project, which would be a Special Use Permit, or a Single Family attached, which would be a Special Use Permit. Staff reviewed and determined the Planned Unit Development would offer the most control and dialog I with the developer, to achieve the best for the area. Chair Erickson inquired, based on the acreage and density, could there be 18 single family homes. I Mr. Bergly indicated based on the ordinance of three units per acre and setbacks, there could be approximately 14 to 15 homes on this site. I Chair Erickson indicated a single family subdivision would only require a building permit and platting. Mr. Bergly indicated that would be correct. . Chair Erickson requested a city map to review the location of the open space that is adjacent in .e regards to the site under discussion. Mr. Bergly noted the areas on an overhead transparency. . .