PL PACKET 01182005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 21, 2004 Page 9 1 Mr. Jones noted the density of the site stating that he cannot fathom this kind of density in this 2 area. He expressed concerns regarding the parking noting that in his opinion the parking would 3 not be sufficient. He stated that there are no proposed alternatives for parking such as an 4 overflow area adding that there is no on-street parking allowed in this area. He asked that the 5 Planning Commission work to keep the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Committee more up 6 to date on the issues so that the Committee can offer the appropriate comments throughout the 7 process. 8 9 Len Pratt, Pratt/Ordway, stated that Bruce Malkerson, Attorney and Gary Vogel, BKV Architects 10 are present to address their concerns regarding this proposal. He stated that they are currently 11 very busy working their development noting the time and effort they spent pulling the current 12 PUD together. He referenced a letter presented to the Commission that formally requests that the 13 Planning Commission deny this request stating that the letter also includes summaries for their 14 review. He stated that before the City considers amending the PUD the City should allow what is 15 already approved to run it's course. He expressed concerns stating that the project is set for 16 specific market conditions that could be adversely affected and reviewed the current market 17 conditions with the Commission. He stated that they are currently underway with both the retail 18 and housing portions of the project. He indicated that foundations are in for over 128 of the 19 condominiums adding that it appears that Quest's market range of$170,000 to $250,000 could 20 blend in well with what they are currently offering and reviewed. He expressed concerns stating 21 that this is the same exact market they are trying to work with and it could have a substantial 22 impact on the marketing process before they are able to get the second phase of homes started. 23 He stated that it is their intent to serve a variety of markets in order to avoid competing against 24 them. He stated that this would impact the scope of the project noting that they are right in 25 middle of implementation with their plan,based on City PUD. 26 27 Bruce Malkerson, Attorney referenced the letter and summaries provided to Planning 28 Commission stating that the documents summarize their concerns. He provided the Commission 29 with a detailed overview of the concerns noting that Quest does not have the authority to apply 30 for an amendment to the existing PUD, as the request was not from the original developer. He 31 referenced the three-acre minimum requirement for the PUD noting that Quest's property falls 32 under that requirement because it is only 2.77 acres. He stated that their request cannot be a 33 standalone PUD without specific changes and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that 34 Quest could not be a part of their PUD as the developer is defined in the PUD ordinance as the 35 person who has control and ownership of all land included under the PUD. He stated that Quest 36 only has ownership of the 2.77 acres and does not have any control over their PUD. He stated 37 that the Ordinance would have to be changed to identify them as Developers noting that the 38 current PUD prohibits this. He stated that the approval of Quest's proposal would impair the 39 ability of the Village PUD noting that the developers are expected to adhere to their final plan. 40 He stated that Mr. Pratt obtained approval of the PUD with all benefits as outlined noting that 41 anyone becoming a part of their PUD would be included in the overall judgment of the project. 42 He stated that inconsistencies could be an issue noting that this is the reason why a PUD, by 43 definition, has to be controlled by one developer and cannot allow another piggyback due to the 44 potential impacts. 45