PC 05/14/80 - Laserfiche WebLink

William G. Kovak, 3124 Weymouth Court addressed the Commission. He stated most people do not understand a PUD but that if given half a chance, a likeable situation can be developed on the site and it would enhance the rest of Pleasanton Meadows. He stated traffic is a problem on Fairlands Drive - always has been and always will be. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jamieson asked what proportion of the 4.4 acres is RM-2500 and what portion is R-1-6500. Mr. Harris stated that the property is pretty evenly divided. Commissioner Jamieson then asked if the entire property were zoned single-family, how many units could be built. Mr. Harris stated theoretically about 22 units. Commissioner Jamieson stated Mr. Oakes could make just as much money on 35 units and he would also favor R-1-6500 zoning. Commissioner Lindsey agrees that there is a traffic problem as the street is quite narrow and asked if it was possible that the median be removed. Mr. Schaumburg stated that this was physically possible but very expensive and half of the homeowners would favor this and half would not. Commissioner Getty stated that this proposal is too dense and she didn't like the orientation of one of the driveways. She stated she would like to see lower density and orientation of the units changed. She stated she would prefer single-family. Chairperson Doherty stated he felt 44 units are too many and that he has problems in rezoning the property. He stated he would like R-1-6500 but that he is not totally opposed to a PUD with not more than 35 units on the site at least until another exit out of the tract is made. A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner Jamieson that PUD-80-4 be denied without prejudice to enable the developer to return to the Planning Commission with a different plan for the site. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: Commissioners Getty, Jamieson, Lindsey and Chairperson Doherty Noes: ,None Absent: Commissioner Wilson Resolution No. 1877 was then entered and adopted denying, without prejudice, case PUD-80-4 as filed by Dennan Construction Company. The applicant was advised he had 15 days in which to appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. Chairperson Doherty again stated he was not totally opposed to a PUD for this location. -12- _.._..______.__.____ .. ___ _..._.. ..._ _.___ ~-r--_.._.. _ _ .. _ ___... _ ,.. ... _. _ .. _. _..~. _ __. T__ _.