Laserfiche WebLink
Item 6i <br />Council meeting dates for December, 1995. (SR95:350) <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Dennis, that the second meeting in December <br />be cancelled. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6c <br />Lynden Homes (Lynn Jansen) <br />AppliCation for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone a 1.01 acre parcel <br />from the Agricultural District to the PUD - MDR (Medium Density Residential) District and <br />for PUD development plan approval over a total of 4.30 + acres (2 existing parcels) of land <br />for a 13-unit single-family residential development. (SR95:348) <br /> <br /> Brian Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis commented on attachment 8 and 9 showing the alternative road and a twelve <br />lot plan. She asked why the lot plan was changed from twelve to thirteen. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the Planning Commission asked staff to look at putting three lots <br />where the four lots are (between the Jones easement and Rose Avenue). Doing that would create <br />less traffic using the Jones easement. Going to a twelve lot subdivision was a quicker way to <br />make the road bend. Instead of a few very large lots (9500 sq. ft.), you have lots that are close <br />to 10,000 sq. ft. After the Planning Commission had problems with the original plan, Mr. <br />Jansen redesigned the four lots so that lot #10 gets smaller, lots #12 and #13 get larger, the <br />design of the houses on lots #12 and #13 are modified because they don't have the full wrap- <br />around porch treatment (the porches are dropped on several sides), and the houses are pushed <br />further away from the Jones PUD with is to the east. The separation between lot #9 and Lot <br />#10 is wider for more landscaping. Mr. Jansen attempted to meet all the aesthetic issues that <br />were raised by the Planning Commission without losing the lot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked what was the difference in the road in Attachment #8. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied Attachment #8 shows what might be possible in terms of the Rose <br />Avenue extension and how it relates to this particular project. The plan shows it could end up <br />a cul-de-sac with an emergency vehicle access running along the existing narrow easement across <br />the end of the Fairgrounds property. That would minimize the amount of land necessary for <br />street purposes. Either would meet the requirements for access. The issue is really if the <br /> <br />10/17/95 -22- <br /> <br /> <br />