PL MINUTES 06211977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• The two absent Board members, Heibel and Johnson, had submitted written comments in basic support of the proposal and these were con- sidered in the discussion of the Board which followed. Mr. Cowan said he thought the plan was well planned and thought out, but agreed with Mr. Johnson that roof top mechanics should be elimin- ated, financial capability should be better established and residential development should be completed before non-residential buildings are started with the screening in and complete before the commercial build- ing is begun. Mr. Letourneau wanted all residential buildings completed before the commercial is started and said he was apprehensive about the way every- one kept referring to only "commercial" , eliminating the service office usage. He was skeptical about how faithfully the project would be maintained. He later voted against the proposal because he felt "there were too many details which had not been worked out" . Mr. Bowerman wanted to be sure that the 10 residential houses "are going to happen" before the "B" and "C" portion of the plan on Silver Lake Road is built and that adequate provisions have been made for screening and plantings. Mr. Marks agreed with the residents that the southernmost residential property along Penrod should have substantially the same back yard as • the rest of the single family dwellings and a 30 foot front yard maintained. He believed that proper buffering of the residential por- tion would provide 100% opaquity which he felt would be better pro- tection than empty lots. The term in the application "under construc- tion" referring to the single family dwellings was too nebulous and Mr. Marks supported the concept that if 4 houses were constructed first there might be an irreversible basis for the easterly portion of the tract remaining residential. The Board member said his own experience as a homeowner on Silver Lake Road led him to believe this plan might provide a better barrier for the residential along Penrod as well as better usage of land than a residential development of the land along Silver Lake Road. He did not feel comfortable with using housing for the elderly for such a buffer. Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to recommend to the Council approval of the Development Concept Phase of the Hedlund P.U.D. application with the following changes : COMPONENTS: V Nuisance control component (C): delete "roofs" and add "meters on west side of buildings" and make both subject to City approval. VI Scheduling Component (B) : At least 4 new single family homes shall have been constructed and 4 other new homes • under construction and landscaping in before commercial is started. "Constructed" is to mean basement blocks in floor poured" . (6) I