Laserfiche WebLink
l <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 />19 <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 />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />91 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />There being no further comments, acting Chair Mulder closed the hearing. <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Mulder, to <br />recommend approval of the preliminary plat and Planned Unit Development <br />"General Concept Plan", creating a 24 unit residential PUD development <br />with an underlying zoning of R-2. The development will include 12 <br />structures with 2 attached owner occupied units, undivided common areas <br />and common maintenance, as illustrated in the application (plan set with <br />loop road dated August 7, 2002), based on the findings and comments of <br />Section 3 in the project report dated August 7, 2002 with modifications to <br />Section 5.1 as follows: <br />a. 7a.m. to 6p.m. week day work and 9a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday work, <br />b. neighborhood meeting on pond's plan before the finished PUD approval. <br />Member Bakeman supported the loop road; empty nesters do need housing as <br />well. Empty nesters use associations are to deal with outdoor maintenance. The <br />controlled design is better than individual lots. There is benefit to Roseville in <br />the location. She liked taking care of drainage issues. The project will not create <br />traffic issues. <br />Member Peper said he was concerned with consistency with goals for young <br />families. While the project is designed and controlled, he would like to see a <br />single family layout on same site. <br />Member Traynor said he was concerned about how this fits with the <br />Comprehensive Plan; this isn't life cycle housing; parts of the plan are consistent <br />with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan addresses drainage issues. There is <br />better control of site with this plan. He is concerned with on-going <br />communications for check-in points between neighbors, developer and staff <br />before final approvals and he appreciates neighborhood meetings by developer. <br />Member Bakeman noted that empty nesters moving in leave a smaller, older <br />home available to first time buyers. <br />Member Mulder commended residents for thOUght�ill comments. Questions have <br />been helpfuL The Planning Commission tries to find the balance between <br />developer and needs of the City and neighborhood. He expressed concern about <br />design of massive roof structure, hoping to make it more human scale and <br />encouraged more architectural design diversity in the neighborhood. Should use <br />landscape to create diversity and work with neighbors before final approvals. <br />Vote on motion: <br />Ayes: 4, Mulder, Bakeman, Peper, Traynor <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />