09 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 4 PUD-74, Ponderosa Homes Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan to construct 110 detached single-family homes for residents aged 55 years and older at the public school option/Medium Density Residential-senior housing site located at 1 Reimers Drive in the Ironwood Development. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR/MDR/HDR/ P&I & Mixed P&IIMDR (Planned Unit Development -Low Density Residential/Medium Density Residential/ High Density Residential/Public & Institutional and Mixed Public & Institutional/Medium Density Residential) District. Also consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Chair Blank indicated that he had the staff report from the previous hearing and confirmed with staff that the staff report from the last hearing and this one were identical. Steve Otto replied that they were identical. He noted that the item was continued from the last meeting by Commissioner Fox in order to have the public noticed area expanded, which staff has done for the present hearing. He then summarized the staff report and described the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project. Mr. Otto noted that staff has received several emails both in opposition and support of the project which have been forwarded to the Commission for consideration. He added that staff has also provided responses to the email submitted by Nancy Allen in a memo distributed to the Commission, and the applicant has met with resident Jereen Gilbert to discuss the project, as well. Mr. Otto noted the City's Traffic Engineer was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Narum referred to page 13 of the staff report and asked Mr. Otto to clarify whether Lots 10-13 and 16-17 have a retaining wall built at the back of the lots. She assumed that the slope of the grade would go from the back to the front. Mr. Otto replied that there is a retaining wall proposed near the property line. He noted that the lots of the existing development are higher than the proposed lots, so there would be a retaining wall on two of the lots. He added that on the other lots mentioned in the section of the staff report, the applicant is proposing a 2:1 slope versus having a retaining wall. He stated that staff felt that in order to maximize a flat area of the rear yard, retaining walls could be put on those lots that have the 2:1 slope bank versus expanding the rear yard areas. He indicated that if they were not put in, residents would most likely want to install them and staff believed having the developer do this atone time would improve their overall structural soundness, as homeowners may not pull permits for the work. Commissioner Narum inquired which way the drainage would go on the lots, and Mr. Otto said if a retaining wall is installed, they would typically have a French drain to EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 9, 2008 Page 1 of 20