My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-25-2004 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
08-25-2004 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2014 8:55:50 AM
Creation date
5/3/2012 2:37:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <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 County Road C versus County Road C <br />given the railroad bridge and the curve in the road. <br />Barraclough indicated that he has concern with the concept development <br />as proposed. Barraclough stated that he would not be opposed to a single - <br />family associated living concept that proposed upscale housing. <br />Barraclough 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 character <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 -I, 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 11 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 />S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.