Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br /> <br />second review and hearing, what details will be available? (materials, <br />landscaping, sized driveway sharing, home owners agreement). <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked for details of the project staging. What can be expected? <br />Thomas Paschka explained the PUD required staging plan. Is there a time frame <br />for completion of the project? (Thomas Paschke noted there is no time line for <br />completion, the project is subject to market conditions, but the PUD would <br />restrict what could be built). <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if assessed public improvement costs and connection <br />charges would be attached to property (yes, estimated $250,000 minimum). <br /> <br />Member Olson asked for the method of calculation for impervious coverage of <br />the 2.5 acre site; is it inclusive of cul-de-sac and sidewalks? (No, similar to the <br />standard single-family area). <br /> <br />No further comments were offered. Chair Rhody closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Duncan moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend <br />approval of the preliminary plat and the Planned Unit Development "General <br />Concept", creating an eight lot residential development with 8 single-family, <br />owner occupied, detached structures, with undivided common areas and common <br />maintenance, as illustrated in the application dated December 13, 2001, based on <br />the findings in the project report dated January 2, 2002 and with the conditions <br />from Section 3.2 through 3.7 of the project report dated January 2,2002. <br /> <br />Member Mulder explained that modifications of the PUD would require a <br />hearing for the amendment process. <br /> <br />Ayes: 7 <br />Nays: 0 <br />