Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pud Summit View topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers Summit View PUD amendment after staff flags insufficient common areas
Summary
The planning commission deferred action on a proposed R7 PUD amendment for Summit View after staff said proposed common open spaces were inadequate; the developer said he would revise plans, and commissioners discussed R10 as an alternative to align better with the comprehensive plan.
The Springfield Planning Commission voted to defer consideration of a rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for approximately 2.78 acres in the Summit View subdivision after staff raised concerns that the proposed common areas do not provide meaningful shared amenities.
Miss Durham, planning staff, told commissioners that while the developer proposes to add 15 lots (bringing the development to 68 homes: 48 detached and 20 attached) the amended plan reduces usable common area. "1 of the proposed areas will be reduced by a cul de sac, and the second is primarily a detention pond. Neither serves as a usable amenity," she said, and noted the playground being proposed is relatively small at "approximately 2,900 square feet." Staff therefore recommended denial unless the applicant enhanced the common areas.
Developer Pedro Reyes and project engineer Phil Castorline were present and said they are willing to work with staff to revise the plan. Staff and the applicant discussed alternatives, including using R10 (a medium-density district) or removing 2–3 lots to create a centrally located active amenity. Planning staff noted that because the acreage is below 5 acres the phase cannot stand alone as a PUD and must be incorporated into the overall community's preliminary master plan.
Commission debate produced a motion to deny that was amended on the floor to a deferral so the developer could revise the plans. The amended motion to defer passed; the record shows the deferral carried with seven recorded yes votes and one abstention (Commissioner Greg). Commissioners asked the applicant to return with a revised plan that better addresses usable common areas, amenity placement and consistency with the comprehensive growth plan.
