12/12/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Council that combining lower and higher density rates within a single development is a common one that has occurred in other areas of the City. Regarding the question of private versus public streets within the development and questions regarding maintenance, he said the PUD does allow the developer the option of private or publ ic streets. He again cited a variety of examples of that type i n th e City. He said in this particular case, the Valley West Home Association expressed concern to the staff that if no conditions were imposed to regulate maintenance, that responsibility would fall on the single-family homeowners. Therefore, certain conditions were established in response to that concern, as outlined on page 1 of the Hearings Official's report. Ms. Smith wondered, in regard to conditions 1 and 2 as set forth by the Hearings Official, whether or not that would affect the density. Mr. Saul said in remedying those conditions, it would not necessarily imply a decrease in density. Mr. Thompson explained to Council that density had changed from 120 units to 115, but not because of those conditions for a playground. It had decreased because of the func- tion of the design. Mr. Saul said it was frequent in PUDs that a decrease in density occurred between the diagrammatic and prelimi- nary stages. He said there would be a public hearing at the pre- liminary stage also. He said one distinction that should be made was that under the Code, and in following normal practice, a decrease is normally accepted because it does not imply a reversal of a previous decision. However, if the density is increased, then the e requirements would be to go back through the diagrammatic process. Mr. Lieuallen asked for clarification regarding the density being compatible with the existing development. He noted the total floor area cited by Mr. Bruce indicated there would be little available open space. Mr. Saul said, as he understood Mr. Bruce's written statement and his testimony tonight, he referred to Land Use Inten- sity System of the Land Use Institute and that it should be used for density impact of this project. He said that system was fairly close in similarity to the standards used by the City Code. He again reiterated there would be common open space with the existing Valley West, as well as playground and tennis court area, and private indi- vidual open spaces for each unit. He said one item might be erroneous in Mr. Bruce's calculating of square footage of units as it would be two-story and therefore could be cut in half; rather than three acres of floor space, it would be one-and-a-half acres. In rebuttal, Mr. Bruce said he did not infer that the City should use the land use intensity ratio system. He was simp ly say i ng that was another source which could be used to address the density problem. He felt the proposed development would be so dense it would not provide an adequate amount of open living space and recreation space. In regard to the due process, he said he had no quarrel with the manner in which the Hearings Official conducted the hearing. However, his quarrel was with the established procedures because e they do not provide due process as it allows the petitioner the 12/ 12/77 - 13 q/2