title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on January 25, 2007.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, January 25, 2007
Commissioners absent: Mr. Day, Mr. Harpole, Mr. Roberts
Staff present: Spriggs, White
Purpose of Work session: To discuss Planned Development District Code
George Krennerich suggested that we change the language concerning streets and property line boundary to state: gross own area sq. area not to include surrounding streets.
Were the streets in the old PUD’s dedicated or private? Mr. Caldwell stated that it could be either. Mr. Krennerich asked, Why don’t we make that all streets within a PUD be built to city standards. But if you dedicate it you would have the property width (right-of-way).
Mr. Caldwell was asked if he usually planned to have the streets dedicated in a PUD? Mr. Caldwell stated that both would apply.
George Hamman stated that the Developer would not want 30’ wide streets in the PUD.
Mr. Sexton commented that after 15 years when the streets need maintenance, they come to the Council with that in hand asking the City to take over their streets. We shouldn’t say that the street needs to be built to standard without the width.
Mr. Halsey commented that if you are building the streets with tight setbacks there will not be adequate right of way to obtain. That is part of the PUD, to have flexibility.
Mr. Caldwell stated that the street code for a City street is 30 ft. curb to curb. If it lacks that, the City won’t accept them (e.g. Upper Duckwater Subdivision). Mr. Krennerich stated that we need to look into that. They should be able to be accepted.
Mr. Caldwell stated that 24 ft. is the norm for PUD drives and the width is not there for parking. Park Place was one example of this. Mr. Caldwell stated that they would not want to dedicate streets within a PUD and the streets would be to narrow. You cannot park in that 24 ft. area, because of the density.
Mr. Krennerich stated that you have to have ...
Click here for full text