Laserfiche WebLink
Notice/Posting - Peter Kernkamp certified the public hearing notice/posting. <br />Staff Presentation - Peter Kernkamp gave the staff report. <br />P/C Questions to Staff <br />Q. If we approve the higher density, or the change in zoning, we would not have the <br />right to review a PUD. If we keep the current zoning could the applicant bring <br />forward a PUD under the existing zoning where we could work with the applicant, <br />perhaps give the applicant the same density but have some control over how the <br />properties are developed. <br />A. That would be an option available to them. <br />Q. What is the definition of a permanent screen strip? <br />A. That is the language of the Code. I would take the meaning of that to be some sort <br />of a buffer provision. <br />Q. So it is not a defined term. <br />A. I do not believe that it is otherwise defined in the code. <br />Q. Is there a 25 foot setback on the RH property to the west of this? <br />A. Yes. <br />Applicant's Presentation - Tom Bennent, 1297 South 104th. We are trying to get the entire <br />property under one zoning type. It is pretty straight forward. <br />Q. <br />A. <br />What is your feeling on the staff recommendation to have the 25 foot setback on <br />the west property line? <br />I am not sure what they are calling the west property line. <br />Peter Kernkamp - That would be the boundary line which runs between this property and the <br />existing town homes. <br />Q. That should not be a problem. <br />Puhlic Comment In Opposition to the Application - Jean Cleabinger, 1590 Garfield #E, <br />Louisville. I think we are all concerned about having something built in our back yard. We <br />purchased property under perhaps a mistaken assumption that it was Middle School Park <br />behind us. Certainly the seller and the realtor may have misrepresented this. City maps also <br />showed that property as Middle School Park. City maps continue to show that, and in fact the <br />map that came as part of this packet shows that it was part of Middle School Park. We feel <br />our property may be devalued if this is developed. We recognize the right to develop land. <br />Perhaps the portion which is currently being shown as the park could be acquired as part of the <br />park, as it has been consistently represented by the City. In this way the current owners would <br />not suffer a loss of value and the City does not have to consider whether they might have some <br />liability on misrepresentation. <br />3 <br />