CCMIN040192 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush indicated the Growth Management ordinance requires that the applicant receive PUDapproval and what was just described is questionable as to being called PUD approval. Mr. Tarver inquired if the Council denies this project, would the school district still require a school in this area and would the district be able to proceed on schedule. Mr. Swift indicated this is the first elementary school the district wants to construct and they want to be under construction soon. Without the development occurring simultaneously with the school construction; potentially the district would proceed on its own and be reimbursed for the improvements necessary for access to the school. Ms. Mohr referred to a remark that the State has the final deoision on the school layout. She was concerned that input be received from the state before a decision is made on the school site. She questioned whether state mandates may require modifications to the plan and whether those modifications would require a minor modification or a major modification. Mr. Swift anticipated any changes would be very minor. Mr. Butler's main concern was with the integrity of the Specific Plan. He did not believe there was a problem with the combination of the school and park site, because the general layout as shown is within the specific plan. Mr. Butler was not in favor of houses around the end of the cul de sac. Building the cul de sac itself would adequately eliminate the possibility of that street going through, which he thought is really everyone's concern. It is important to have access to the school through Martin Avenue and as Mr. Hulett pointed out, there will be less traffic doing that if the school is a little farther away than as it is shown on this plan. He agreed the course that makes the most sense is Option 2, which would deny Phase I, which everybody is having difficulty with. The rest of the plan does meet the specific plan and should be approved to go through growth management without making any promises for Village I. That plan should come through subsequent approval cycles. Ms. Scribner had concerns with the whole project, including access to the school, density of Village II, and a need to redesign Village I. She had no problem with location of the school. The sum of all the concerns is uncertainty about impacts on the whole plan and she was reluctant to approve any portion of the plan because there are too many questions. Ms. Mohr agreed with Mr. Butler. Consistency with the Specific Plan is well established and she had no problem with the design of Villages II and III. She also was unconcerned about the 04/01/92 Page 7