2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

b. Request for Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Change from 1 Low-Density Residential (LR) to Medium-Density Residential (MR) and a 2 Rezoning from Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR-1) to Medium Density 3 Residential (MDR) on Part of the Development Site; Preliminary Approval of a 4 Major Plat to Subdivide the Whole Development into 20 Lots for Single-Family, 5 Detached Townhome Development, Variances to Side Yard Setbacks and Cul-6 De-Sac Street Length and Shared Access to McCarrons Lake as a Conditional 7 Use. (PF20-029) 8 Chair Gitzen opened the public hearing for PF20-029 at approximately 7:46 p.m. and 9 reported on the purpose and process of a public hearing. 10 11 Senior Planner Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated 12 February 3, 2021. 13 14 Chair Gitzen reviewed the process for Commission discussion on the five different 15 actions needed. 16 17 Member Kimble indicated it was mentioned that there was a great difference in grade 18 in the plan and she asked Mr. Lloyd to walk them through what is happening with the 19 grade. She wondered what the impact is on the easterly boundary with the skinny 20 strip. 21 22 Mr. Lloyd and Ms. Gundlach reviewed the different grades on the property with the 23 Commission. 24 25 Member Pribyl wondered if staff had a diagram that shows the lot in question for 26 rezoning and how that overlays on the full site. It seemed like from doing a quick 27 sketch overlay herself, it is primarily at the trail, the drainage basin, unit 16 and 28 maybe a corner of 15. It is essentially one unit, which is what is allowed on the lot 29 the way it is planned. 30 31 Mr. Lloyd indicated that is basically correct. He noted he did not have a diagram for 32 this. 33 34 Member Pribyl asked for the overall site, medium density residential, how many units 35 would be allowed for this size of site. 36 37 Mr. Lloyd believed there could be 48 units on its own. Obviously 48 detached 38 townhome units would not be able to fit on lots like this. 39 40 Chair Gitzen indicated he would like more information on the zero-yard setback. 41 42 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the zero-yard setback with the Commission. 43 44 Chair Gitzen understood that usually with townhomes there are HOA’s where the 45 outside of the buildings are maintained but it was his understanding that these are 46 single family homes and will maintain their own houses, so the five feet setback is for 47 maintenance. He knew the City had to go with the zoning that is there now, and he 48 RCA Attachment D Page 1 of 51