PCMin_82May3 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMiJIISSION MAY 3, 1982 PAGE 6 surrounding area-=~ritness the fifty foot buffer strip on the east side and the ample buffering on the south side, which provides for recreation as well as retention. This plan presents a sound and orderly approach to the development of a parcel of property which presents peculiar difficulties in solving storm water runoff. The plan presents a very excellent street orientation approach in that the east-west side streets--properly graced--slow down runoff and direct it into a drainageway and retention area on what might be termed a step-down approach from north to south. The sixty-four lots in Bernwood Additions Dto. 2 thru 5 present a density very compatible with Bernwood No. 1 and the homes on the west side of Tatum and a density which is entirely in keeping with the reasonable increase supported by the bordering neighborhood in criteria dated April 9, 1982. Providing housing opportunities in the present and forseeable future economy is a difficult task. It requires close cooperation between governmental bodies, planners, lenders, developers, architects and engineers, and residents. Such cooperation results in efficiency and is a major factor in creating an environment for affordable housing by a moderate increase in density in order t o reduce land, street and utility costs. Jim Bourquin stated that he was not present at the meeting when the vote was taken on the approval of the PUD and if he had attended, he would not have voted in favor of a density as high as 8.5. He commends • the Task Force for the ~mendous effort and time they have put into their interest in the community and their neighborhood to come up with suggestions t}Zat are compatible with existing homes. He also feels that high marks should be given to the developer and the architect for coming up with single family development, with which some variances, meets the criteria that were being developed even though the criteria has not been completely thrashed out by the Planning Commission. He personally does not like the piece meal approach; however, it should be realized that with the adoption of this development, three-fourths of the area under consideration has been preserved for single families. The design is innovative and the green areas established to the east and south are a major move for a happy solution for the neighbors. He feels the resolution shot~d be approved. He urges the developer to diligently follow the overall guidelines that are being developed for the next tract. Labalestra feels that if the same plan came under PUD, it would have been a much better plan for the Council and Planning Commission to react to because it would be a stage development process. He has reservations as to how to encompass some of the criteria proposed by Planner Dale into the approval process and still make them mandatory and not just suggestions. Those being (1) provide comprehensive landscaping between the single family areas and the development - 50 percent screening if they are not single family, and incorporating the trail; (2) provisions for the ponding on the south and east end of the lot with incorporation of recreational facilities; and (3) . storm sewer as a requirement and who pays for it. He would rather see it approached under PUD but if it is approved as submitted, could these conditions be made mandatory. Attorney Swanson states that the HAROLD NILSFN (CONT'D) JIM BOURCUIN JOHN LABALESTRA