pm_030409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 04, 2009 Page 14 Ayes: 4 (Boerigter; Best; Martinson; Bakeman) Nays: 3 (Doherty; Wozniak; Gottfried) Motion carried. MOTION (9.2) Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Best to RECOMEMND APRPOVAL of the REZONING of 2025 County Road B from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), with an underlying zoning of General Residence District (R-3). Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. MOTION (9.3) Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, as prepared for the March 4, 2009 Planning Commission meeting; subject to the conditions of Section 9 of the staff report dated March 4, 2009; with final approval by the City Council considered after all conditions and required documents and permits have been submitted for final approval; with those final approvals considered as a separate application process. Commissioner Boerigter questioned the actual concern in making this rezoning change; noting that it shouldn’t be traffic; the building footprint had been reduced; and noted that the current proposal was close to setback requirements and had limited deviations from square footage requirements. Commissioner Boerigter noted that the building mass could remain even if the developer chose to reduce number units and make them bigger within the same footprint. Chair Bakeman expressed concern with the size of the building; and suggested that with a separate limitation on the building size or mass, it may help neighbors’ concerns and keep the building to a reasonable size. Commissioner Gottfried opined that he was not as concerned about traffic capacity as with the scale of the building: its size, mass and height creating the overall scale. Commissioner Gottfried opined that the proposed building seemed overkill in providing continuity of the neighborhood. Mr. Paschke addressed density versus mass issues; perceptions of a truss roof system rather than a flat roof system; location of two (2) major thoroughfares on either side of the property; previous consideration of a townhome project in 1995, and consideration of Medium Density of the parcel at that time; and transitions into other single-family uses. Mr. Paschke indicated that, if building scale was still an issue, there were exterior façade designs that could visually reduce the perceived building scale and other available mitigation measures. Chair Bakeman and Commissioner Wozniak opined that, if the building didn’t have the north-south piece or wall, it may fit better, rather than the footprint filling the entire parcel, and providing for more green space. Commissioner Best opined that the private market and economy would dictate the density to some measure; and noted the ongoing work of staff and the applicant on reducing the footprint and increasing the green space. Commissioner Doherty suggested conditions that would provide an average, not-to- exceed square footage per unit; that would ultimately reduce the number of units and the building footprint. Commissioner Boerigter suggested that, rather than Commissioners attempting to redesign the project, that the vote be called, leaving the decision up to Mr. Mueller and his architects.