Laserfiche WebLink
<br />issues pertaining to traffic access from 20th Avenue into the development, since traffic flows at 55 <br />mph. <br /> <br />Ms. Gail Nadon (1984 73rd Avenue) noted concern that there is no designated park area and with <br />the growth of the area there is no other access to play ground areas except via 20th Avenue. <br /> <br />Ms. Jennifer Steward (1995 73rd Avenue) suggested a berm or trees be incorporated to buffer the <br />R2 development from the town home development. <br /> <br />Mr. Patterson questioned what trees would be saved or planted and what would happen to the <br />drainage. Mr. Rehbein didn't plan to remove the trees on the property line and ultimately would <br />not hinder the drainage. <br /> <br />Ms. Steward felt that Mr. Rehbein's development should comply with the same 35' rear year <br />setback requirement as the R2 district. <br /> <br />Mr. Palzer explained with a PUD the developer works with the City on special issues including <br />the setback requirements and wetlands. Mr. Dale Runkle (Bright Keys) explained that the <br />proposed twin homes are single level units, that range 1220 sq. ft. to 1300 sq. ft. without the <br />garage. The Bright Key development plans to price each unit around $130,000. <br /> <br />Ms. Denise Saxton (1949 73rd Street) voiced a concern about mitigating the drainage from the <br />existing development. <br /> <br />Mr. Patterson questioned Staff if there is a street light maximum. Mr. Palzer replied that street <br />lights are spaced every three houses. However, the City pays for street lights and is considering <br />eliminating some street lights. <br /> <br />Mr. Buckbee questioned why is the width of the proposed streets are thinner than normal and why <br />are there fewer setback requirements than in the R2 district. Mr. Rehbein commented that the <br />streets are the same width as in the Willow Glen development and the setbacks are negotiable <br />within a PUD. The PUD preserves the natural setting within a development. Thus, some of the <br />setbacks are less than the R2 requirements. <br /> <br />Chair Welk replied that the City resexves the right to request park dedication funds or park land. <br />Also, the PUD is designed to embrace the natural settings of the parcel. Chair Welk read aloud <br />Ordinance #4 51.01 PURPOSE. <br /> <br />To encourage a more creative and efficient development ofland and its improvements <br />through the presexvation of more restrictive application of zoning requirements such as lot <br />sizes. height and building setbacks. while at the same time. meetings the standards and <br />puz:poses of the comprehensive plan and preserving the health. safety and welfare of the <br />citizens of the City. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />"\ <br />. <br /> <br />~.. <br /> <br />I! <br />