pm_960410 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes April 1 0, 1996 Member Wietecki stated the site is tight and difficult. He said that approximately 20 feet between three story buildings was too small. He asked why the developer had not considered a single family with a three-story condominium. Mularoni noted that the neighbors did not want the added height. Wietecki said this was an old 81. Paul type development with a sea of asphalt in front of it. The green space is only the scenic easement and is not available to the condo owners. There appears to be a lot of concrete on the site and there needs to be vast improvement in the landscape plan. There is no recreation opportunity. The one story and basement units meet market needs but the second and third story units may be a problem. He felt that 72 units off of one street, feeding onto County Road B would create access problems. (Estimate 500-600 vehicle trips per day). Wietecki expressed concern regarding the three lots that face Burke, in that the original approval of the Comprehensive Plan stated that the design would be in character with single family homes but it does need additional landscaping and screening. He expressed concern with plowing on the small narrow streets in the winter. Wietecki said the buildings do not look bad but he had concerns about the garages at the front of the buildings. Member Cunningham stated that he was concerned with the road standards and the ability for the Fire Department to meet emergency requirements as well as snow plows being able to store snow on the site. Wietecki noted that because this is a sketch plan, the Planning Commission automatically declares the application information to not be complete and request the applicant to return in Mayor June with a completed application for a public hearing. Marv Richardson, owner of a duplex located on Burke and Albemarle, expressed concern regarding the units that face Burke. Member Cunningham stated that the rear of the units that face on Burke, must be bermed and placed at the normal setback line. No other action was necessary. 7(a) Kettler amendment to the Rosetown Ridge PUD. Dennis Welsch explained the need for an additional amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the Rosetown Ridge PUD which would allow for two units, Lots 33 and 34, to be located 18 inches closer to the south property line with a setback of no less than 3.5 feet from the property line. Developer Rich Kettler explained the honest engineering mistake which altered the setback of the units from the required 5 feet from the property to 3.5 feet from the property line. Chairperson Wietecki stated it was not easy to obtain the original approval and although he was concerned about this type of error occurring in the future. 8