pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � Commissioner Best thanked staff for providing additional information in the staff report and its assistance in addressing this difficult proposal, specifically the comparables and relative impact to adjoining properties. Commissioner Best opined that those items that the Cominission had been asked by the City Council to look at, as detailed in Section 7.8 of the staff report, had been addressed; that sufficient revisions had been made by the developer/applicant; and that this project seemed comparable to previous projects as noted. Commissioner Best questioned why this project should be considered differently from those other projects; opined that staff had provided due diligence in their review; and while he was initially opposed to the project, it appreciated the way it had been revised to address various concerns; and spoke in support of the project as presented. City Planner Paschke reminded Commissioners that they were being asked to consider a General Concept plan to be forwarded as recommended to shape the project; and that the finer details of the Plan would develop as the project proceeded, with further modifications to address certain impacts. Mr. Paschke asked that the Commission articulate for specific comments to further shape the project. Commissioner Wozniak asked what role the City had in assuring that the project is built as portrayed. Mr. Paschke noted that this project, based on current City Code and the PUD process itself, provided a much higher scrutiny than during development of Ferriswood and/or Midland Grove Condominiums. Mr. Paschke advised that final plan design documents, as a PUD Agreeinent, are part of a contractual obligation between the development and City, and would remain as presented unless further PUD Amendments were sought. Vice Chair Boerigter noted that during the construction process, the location of the building and field conditions would be monitored by Building Officials in accordance with current City Code. Mr. Paschke concurred; and further noted that neither Ferriswood nor Midland Grove had to proceed through the stringent stormwater management process that this project would endure; with this project required to achieve a higher standard and responsibility for drainage produced on its site, and flow from Mr. Enzler's property, in providing a stormwater management plan that would meet the City's and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. Coinmissioner poherty noted that he had not been a big supporter of this project in the past; but complimented staff and the developer for inaking the significant revisions from what the Coinmission had reviewed at previous meetings. Commissioner poherty noted that the scale had been too large, and that the developer had scaled back the project; and had been responsive to concerns previously expressed by the Commission, the City Council, and the public. Commissioner poherty echoed Commissioner Best's comments, and spoke in support of the revised proposal. Commissioner Gottfried spoke specifically about his ongoing concerns with the project: that it was too large and that the height shouldn't be more than two (2) or three (3) stories total; and retain a forty foot (40') setback. Commissioner Gottfried noted the need to address the economic viability of the site and developer's rationale for fifty-five (55) units; however, he opined that the project