Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />1 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />25 <br />7 <br />8 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />4 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />Member Bakeman asked if conditions can be added to motion, which then will <br />become part of the final PUD. <br />Member Wakeman stated a need for a maximum size of � and screening of the <br />houses, which will also stop the view of the park. <br />Chair Mulder asked for details of the landscape plan. Developer, staff and <br />neighbors work on a landscape plan. Staff should be directed to work on such a <br />plan. <br />Member Stone stated the setback should be 30 feet} with a 20 foot setback <br />between units. Thomas Paschke said the Planning Commission could specify <br />wetland setbacks and sizes of units — not to exceed a maximum footprint size. <br />Chair Mulder asked about outbuildings. Thomas Paschke noted that a P D <br />normally does not allow outbuildings as a condition of approval. <br />Member Stone cautioned the maximum setback should be flexible. The City Code <br />requires a 50 foot setback. <br />Member Bakeman asked for clarification of section 5.12. <br />Chair Mulder asked for clarification of which levcl? when does it become <br />a part of the house`s when it has a roof. <br />Member Peper said he does not understand the maximum size of the unit. <br />Member Bakeman explained that there will be a massing from the opposite side <br />of the wetland. <br />Bob Moser said the development is not specific because of the need for flexibility. <br />The setbacks that are proposed limit flexibility; could vary between 1 400 and <br />1800 sX, <br />To project will be sent to City Council on August 18, 2003, Thomas Paschke will <br />mail notice as to when this will go to Council., Park Commission will review this <br />proposal in September. <br />The Planning staff reconunended approval of the proposal. <br />Where was no public comment offered, Chairman Mulder closed the hearing. <br />Motion: Member Wakeman moved, second by Member Peper, to recommend <br />approval (approve w /modifications or deny) of the preliminary plat and Planned <br />Unit Development `General Concept Plan', creating a 6 unit residential PUD <br />