Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTUS <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 12, 2004 <br />Wayne Wood, County Road C, felt that the access for this development <br />was more appropriate via Old Cowrty Road C versus County Road C <br />given the railroad bridge and the curve in the road. <br />Banaclough indicated that he has concern with The concept development <br />as proposed. ~Ba~'raclough stated that he would not be opposed to a single- <br />family associated living concept that proposed upscale housing. <br />Ban aclough noted that the townhomes proposed consist of approximately <br />1,400 square foot per unit. Barraclough stated that he is opposed to <br />rezoning the property to R-2 and, again note that he would to see a more <br />upscale development single-family home development. <br />James indicated that there would have to be variances available to develop <br />the property with more than 5 or 6 units on a public street. However, 5 or <br />6 units would be feasible on a private street. James stated that he was not <br />sure the neighborhood would support the upscale development suggested <br />by Barraclough. <br />Knudsen stated that the density proposed is too high and out of cha~'acter <br />with what he would be comfortable with. Duray stated that he did not <br />support the rezoning to R-2 and felt there were options for laying out a <br />single-family development on this property that would work. <br />James asked if the City would entertain the installation of a public street. <br />The City Planner pointed out that there would be additional right-of--way <br />width as well as additional setback requirements relative to developing <br />with a public street. The Planner noted that under a PUD proposal, the <br />City may consider reductions in setbacks, etc. in exchange for some gain <br />to the City such as increased common open space, the clustering of units, <br />etc. <br />Knudsen pointed out the concerns expressed by the neighborhood about <br />traffic, and noted that the higher the density, the more traffic. <br />Wojcik stated that he supported an R-], owner-occupied development. <br />Weihe noted that the City's Comp Plan indicates that the goal for this area <br />is to prevent over intensification of land use development Weihe stated <br />that 1l units would not achieve that goal. <br />Duray asked if the City would look favorably on a PUD which would <br />allow for some movement in the setbacks. The City Planner indicated that <br />a PUD would seem reasonable given the configuration of the land does not <br />lend itself to a standard development. The Planner explained how a PUD <br />-~- <br />