PC 11/19/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

)' relating to the Lighting and Landscaping District. Finally, he would also agree to delete Condition 27 because he believes that those lots should be individually negotiated. Commissioner Baker suggested that the road issue and Condition 27 be continued to allow for future negotiations. A discussion took place relating to the concerns expressed by the audience relating to these issues. Commissioner Dove expressed concern with the cost of undergrounding utilities along Sycamore Road and stated that doing so would take away from the rural enviromnent. With regard to the safety issue, he noted that he recently spoke with Bill van Gelder regarding Plans A an B. Mr. van Gelder gave the opinion that there is no advantage one way or the other between the two from a safety standpoint. He feels that the setback should be reevaluated in relation to the sound issues. However, he does agrees with Commissioner Lutz in that he would much rather see larger back yards, particularly to keep small children playing in the back yard rather than near the street. Chair Cooper commented that the development is nicely planned, and although it will be very expensive. He expressed disappointment that in 1992 there was a high number of units approved by the City Council, leaving this Commission with a backlog of over 3,500 units to deal with. He also believes that since the school district was in such a rush to sell their property, it has left the Commission with a very difficult decision that is going to make a lot of people very unhappy, no matter what the outcome. He noted that he does not like either road aligmnent because it will cause increased traffic to a road that was intended to be a country lane. He feels there is no way to mitigate the impact that would be incurred by the Gudaitis family and, on the other hand, with Plan B, other residents will be heavily impacted. He further expressed sympathy to the Greenes, as well. Chair Cooper feels that the developer is in a situation to dominate every issue, leaving the small land owners with little to no recourse. He feels that this development is a disaster that has been in the making for the past ten years. He commented that he does not hold his feelings against the developer because he feels that it's the 1992 City Council that has put many of the neighbors in a no-win situation. However, he related that he will not reject the project, but feels that the best solution has not yet been identified. With regard to Sycamore Road, he feels that it should be narrowed to maintain the rural atmosphere. He stated that each person should be responsible for their own v-ditch and is against combining them. He agrees that the setback should be reduced in order to allow for larger back yards. He also supports staff's recommendation for condition 21 to require a homeowner's association to pay for the landscape maintenance. He agrees with the developer's finance plan in that they should not bear the total cost for the construction of "A" Street. He supports staff's recommendation requiring single-story homes on lots 13, 41, 42, and 43. Finally, he would like to recommend that the City Council conduct a feasibility study of undergrounding the utilities along Sycamore Road, but will not recommend that the cost be assigned to the developer. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 November 19, 1997