PC Packet 05.09.19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The PUD amendment is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in terms of land use and density. It is in staff's opinion that the PUD amendment meets the intent of the PUD ordinance, and is consistent with the PUD general plan. The proposed 65 -foot lot sizes will still meet the setback regulations outlined for the PUD and the density meets the ordinance standards. Juba provided additional details on the parks and trails. The Parks Commission has been working with the Excelsior Group to complete park improvements and a parking lot by the end of this year. The trail system within the development is graded and will be paved later this year. The applicant originally planned to remove the trees along the northeastern side of the development, but has since stated that they have made revisions to plans that includes the preservation of a 15 foot wide swath of trees. In conclusion, staff believes that the layout of the proposed Adelaide Landing PUD general plan exceeds the City's standards for residential developments. Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment OP5 (Excelsior Group) for the development to be known as "Adelaide Landing," subject to the conditions listed in the resolutions. Madam Chair invited the applicant, Ben Schmidt, from the Excelsior Group to address the Planning Commission. Schmidt states that they are asking for a PUD amendment because development standards have changed since the beginning of the project. Adelaide Landing has been an ongoing project for the last five years and builders have adjusted their standards. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:15pm. 5815 135th Street North, Jeffrey Dumrose — Asked for clarification on the number of lots being added near his property. The developer came forward to address his concerns. Schmidt stated that there are the same number of lots in that particular area, however, the front side of the lots are facing a different road now. Dumrose asked if the stakes currently in place are in accordance to the PUD amendment. Smith states that the stakes are in place for the grading and that the grading plan has remained the same. Dumrose continues to ask about grading specifics. Juba addresses the Chair to clarify that the grading plan. 5905 Freenland Court N, Kristin Pangerl — Addressed the Commission and states that her property is directly across from the cul-de-sac. Mrs. Pangerl asked if any additional trees will be planted within the preserved tree area, if the lots will encroach the tree area next to the pond, if the new parcels will have access to the pond, and if the trees will be privately owned. Juba states that staff has not received any final landscaping plans or final plats for this particular area of the development. The applicant has committed to preserving the row of trees in the northeast corner of the development. Juba states that the trees in question will be privately owned. Permission to gain access to the pond via private property will need to be granted to the corresponding party.