Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Parkridqe Development, Case No. 2471 <br /> <br />paqe 11 <br /> <br />4. CONCLUSION <br /> <br />The City has recognized that alternative housing styles are needed <br />in the community, and large lots such as Mr. Kehr's land offer <br />logical locations for this type of development. We believe the <br />units Mr. Kehr would build would be of high quality and a welcome <br />addition to the City's housing stock. There are concerns, <br />however, about the specific proposal being offered, both in terms <br />of its compatibility with surrounding properties and its internal <br />functioning. <br /> <br />Given the character of the existing neighborhood, we believe the <br />project would present an attractive and appropriately-scaled face <br />to County Road C, but it would put all its traffic onto County <br />Road C, creating much more activity than would be associated with <br />single-family development. without clear plans to integrate this <br />proj ect into a neighborhood and street system connecting to Dale <br />Street, this development would be an "enclave", as noted in 1985. <br />with a clear plan, or at least the expression of the intent to <br />implement such a plan for this neighborhood, the Parkridge plan <br />becomes much more compatible with it surroundings. The commitment <br />to such a plan requires action by the City beyond Mr. Kehr's <br />control at this time. <br /> <br />Given the concerns about setbacks to the east for additional <br />separation and landscaping, and setbacks to the west for visual <br />purposes, and the drainage plan which takes up much of the <br />internal yard space in the proj ect, it appears that the overall <br />density of the project is too much for this site. . By removing <br />some units and reconfiguring the remainder, the site could support <br />a townhouse development with adequate landscaping, ponding, <br />setbacks, and usable yard space. If public streets are to be <br />dedicated, an additional set of standards would apply to the <br />design. <br /> <br />The basic question with any PUD is what benefit does the city get <br />in return for granting some flexibility to the developer. In the <br />case of the Parkridge PUD, the benefits should be more than simply <br />providing a needed form of housing in the city. We should expect <br />a plan which is integrated and compatible with its surroundings, <br />and which provides adequate space and features for its new <br />residents. We believe such a plan is possible for this site, if <br />the developer is willing and able to make the necessary internal <br />changes, and if the city is willing to provide the necessary <br />external framework to allow it to happen. <br />