Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Council Minutes <br />August 15, 1983 <br />Page Four <br /> <br />Mr. Gary Santwire in reviewing the requested density changes, indicated that in <br />no way would the increased density go outside of the present boundaries on the <br />approved site plan. Mr. Santwire indicated that the increased density changes <br />would not cut into the original green space as accepted on the original plat. <br /> <br />Discussion was carried on regarding the size of the units. Mr. Santwire indicated <br />that the size of the dwelling units would range from approximately 650 sq. feet to <br />1,800 sq. feet depending on what the market requires. <br /> <br />Discussion was also carried on regarding parking. Mr. Santwire indicated <br />that the City requires that each dwelling unit have one garage and one parking <br />space. Discussion was carried on regarding the proposed changes in Block 1. <br />Mr. Santwire indicated that he proposed to have a zero sideyard setback for <br />double bungalows in Block 1. <br /> <br />Mr. Larry Toth indicated that his property may be affected the most by the increased <br />density, and therefore, expressed his concern of the approval of the increased <br />density. <br /> <br />Mr; Van Sering indicated that he was in Oppos1t1on of the increased density re- <br />quest, and further indicated that he wanted it to remain as approved three years <br />ago. <br /> <br />Mr. Walter Nielson indicated his Oppos1t1on to the change requested based on in- <br />creased traffic volume in the area. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the City Council must consider land use <br />patterns in the consideration of the increased density request. <br /> <br />Counci1member Duitsman indicated that he approved the the increased density re- <br />quest for Blocks 2, 3, and 4, and further indicated that he supported the City <br />Administrator's recommendation that Block 1 remain the same. Counci1member <br />Duitsman further indicated that it was his recommendation that the density in <br />ParcelS be 30 units, and that that increase in density be on the southern portion <br />of Block 5. <br /> <br />Counci1member Gunkel questioned the possibility of access to the single family <br />lots in Block 1 from the PUD. Mr. Gary Santwire indicated that the only way <br />to serve the lots would be from Elk Hills Drive, and therefore access could not <br />be through the PUD. <br /> <br />Discussion was carried on regarding storm sewer drainage with the increased density. <br />Counci1member Gunkel indicated that she has problems and concerns with the process <br />of approving changes in the conditional use permit and site plan. Counci1member <br />Gunkel indicated that the proposed changes are concept changes and that final <br />approval will have to be made through the Planning Commission and City Council. <br />Counci1member Gunkel questioned the public hearing held at the time of modifi- <br />cations in the concept. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that it is not unreasonable to request changes <br />in a PUD concept when the development may take a period of 5 to 10 years. Mayor <br />Hinkle indicated that he was in agreement with the Staff's recommendation of Block <br />1 as the traffic could cause a problem with the Elk Hills Development. Mayor Hinkle <br />indicated that Mr. Santwire has proposed a desirable PUD and further indicated that <br />