Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I <br />ARQJ;;N HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 31,1995 8 .- <br />Mr. Ringwald noted in September of 1993, the Applicant submitted a six lot PUD Concept Plan . <br />review to the City Staff. The staff recommendation was to reduce the number of lots to three or four I <br />and to use the required 60 foot radius cul-de-sac. <br />Mr. Ringwald indicated the Applicant then in September of 1994 again submitted a six lot PUD for I <br />staff review, and staff recommended reducing the number to five or preferably four. <br />Mr. Ringwald noted in November of 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for I <br />a six lot PUD with virtually the same reaction as noted in September, 1993 and 1994 staff memos. <br />Mr. Ringwald indicated the staff recommended the Planning Commission table the application, I <br />giving the Applicant specific direction on acceptable development parameters. <br />Mr. Ringwald reported the Planning Commission considered a motion to table the request and give I <br />specific direction on acceptable development parameters. However, the petitioner requested that the <br />Planning Commission take action on their request. Therefore, the Planning Commission took action I <br />on their request. <br />Mr. Ringwald reported the Planning Commission recommended denial of Planning Case 95-16, -I <br />Balfany Preliminary Plat. The recommendation to deny the Preliminary Plat was based on: <br />A. Plat requires a variance to the cul-de-sac diameter. I <br />B. Lot 1 does not meet the rear yard setback requirements; and <br />C. All portions of Lot 25, Block 3, Rohlder's Home and Garden Acres have not been <br /> included in the plat. - <br />Mr. Ringwald indicated the primary concern is the radius of the cul-de-sac. <br />Mr. Ringwald informed the City Council they could approve the request, send the application back I <br />to the Planning Commission or deny the application. - <br />Mr. Ringwald noted there would be five new lots with one existing lot. <br />Mr. Ringwald indicated the primary reason for denial was staff believed there were options available I <br />for a design that would be code consistent and still establish the goals desired by the developer to <br />save trees and eliminate ejector sewer systems. I <br />Mr. Ringwald indicated the Applicant did not make a compelling argument for the tree in the island <br />of the cul-de-sac and the smaller radius. I <br /> -I <br /> I <br />