Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />September 27, 2005 <br />--------------------------- <br /> <br /> Mr. Pacheco stated that if Outlot A were combined with the Beck property, a commercial <br />site could be created, but it was his opinion that this was not a good idea. Mr. Pacheco <br />stated that the existing wetlands are not attractive, but that they will be improved and <br />enhanced with the proposed project. He stated that he was willing to work with staff in <br />resolving the remaining issues. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Westgaard asked how many units infringed on the 20 foot wetland setback. <br />Mr. Harlicker stated that the entire development would, but that there are no specific <br />setbacks for PUD’s. He stated that if the property were zoned R3, five units would <br />encroach the 20-foot no-cut no-grade setback. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Westgaard stated he agreed with Commissioner Stevens’s comments and he <br />also was struggling with the zone change. He felt it the property would better utilized for <br />some other type of use than townhomes and was not in favor of approval of the requests. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pacheco stated that they have attempted to find a buyer for the property as it is currently <br />zoned and there was a strong lack of interest. He stated that this project is different, since it <br />is for seniors. He explained that the builder has included community centers in other <br />projects, but that there is a “threshold” of where it becomes valuable and that this project is <br />not large enough for it to be a valuable asset. Mr. Pacheco explained how the grading would <br />be done next to the wetlands and their plans to improve them by restoring them with native <br />plants. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Offerman stated that he agreed the property was more viable as residential. <br />He stated that it is unclear that the applicant can meet the requirements noted by staff. He <br />felt that the enhancements proposed will benefit the development, but questioned what the <br />benefit to the City is. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Ropp stated that he agreed that commercial was not the best use for the <br />property. He stated that he was concerned with the City Engineer’s comments and whether <br />or not the applicant would be able to address those issues. <br /> <br /> Discussion followed regarding the 60-day rule. Mr. Pacheco asked when the City Council <br />would review the request, if the Planning Commission voted for denial. Mr. Harlicker stated <br />that the items will be considered at the October 17 City Council meeting. Mr. Pacheco <br />th <br />asked that the Planning Commission act on the requests tonight. He asked if he would be <br />able to revise the plans prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Harlicker stated yes, but that <br />the revised plans must be received at least one week prior to the meeting. <br /> <br /> Chair Anderson stated he felt strongly there should be no grading next to the wetlands. He <br />stated that he liked what the developer has done to improve the plan, but felt more could be <br />done. He stated he also supported the land use change from Community Commercial to <br />Urban Residential. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Offerman felt that the Commission should act on all four of the requests and <br />not look at each one independently. He did not feel it would be appropriate to change the <br />land use and zoning at this time, since they have only heard a proposal from one developer. <br /> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY NEW <br />CENTURY LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT <br /> <br />