Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />.'. <br />� <br />1 <br />� <br />�� <br />� <br />L� <br />I �. I <br />I I <br />I? <br />I? <br />I� <br />I� <br />1 f, <br />I� <br />I� <br />I'� <br />'}i � <br />?I <br />�a <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />���� <br />,- <br />� <br />�� <br />�� <br />i5r <br />.} � <br />�� <br />5 5 <br />5� <br />;� <br />�y7 <br />'} ~ <br />�� <br />� h� <br />�i? � <br />-� I <br />., <br />�_ <br />�_L <br />�� <br />.G� <br />rtf7 <br />There are major challenges wi�l� the Watershed. The final product may be significantly <br />different and supports reviewing this again after solutions to all the requirements. <br />Member Traynor said there is not always enough information at the concept stage and <br />conditions must be added to the decisions. Could the Planning Commission get a status <br />report as the process unfolds? <br />Chair Mulder said the Planning Commission can be frustrated wi�l� PUDs which are <br />abandoned after the Planning Commission review. Can the process be changed? <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, second by Member Boerigter, to <br />recommend approval of the preliminary plat, creating 7 town home lots and <br />a single condominium lot. <br />Ayes: (Roll call) 6, Traynor, Pust, Boerigter, Bak�man, Ipsen, Mulder <br />Nays: 1, Doherty <br />Motion carried. <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, second by Member Boerigter, to <br />recommend (upon City Council consideration of the final development plan) <br />approval of the rezoning from R-1 single family residence District to Planned <br />Unit Development with an underlying zoning of R-3, General Residence <br />District for the condominium lot and R-6, Townhouse District for the town <br />home lot. <br />Ayes: (Roll call) 7, Traynor, f���Farr#k�. Post, Boerigter, Bal{eman, Ipsen, Muldet <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Motion: Member �aketnan moved, second by Member Pust, to recommend <br />approval of the general concept development planned unit development plan, <br />subject to the conditions stipulated in Section 8 of the project report dated <br />February 2,2005, with the addition of a clause in #$.3 requiring review by <br />the Capitol Region Watershed District. <br />Member Traynor proposed a friendly amendment in condition#$,2 for additional <br />for style and material of the character of the neighborhood. <br />Chair Mulder proposed a friendly amendment in condition �$.5 for additional <br />landscaping design coordination by the developer with the neighborhood and <br />wetland and the church regarding parking. The developer concurred with the <br />motion and conditions. The motion with friendly amendments was approved. <br />fiye: % <br />Nay: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Page 10 <br />