Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Planning Commission <br />The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the project, in general, was good but believed it was too <br />dense for the subject parcel and suggested the parcel should be maintained for commercial use. <br /> <br />The commission also received comments from the public, which focused on land use and zoning <br />requirements, traffic, and safety. The commission shared some of their concerns as they related to density <br />and location. Staff have also received three letters of objection to an apartment complex on the subject <br />parcel, which are attached for review. <br /> <br />The applicant has also submitted an updated plan which addresses some of the comments made during the <br />concept review. Adjustments include clarification of the setback standards, emergency vehicle access, snow <br />storage, and parking stall design. <br /> <br />If, after receiving comments from the City Council, the applicant decides to move forward, they will be <br />required to thoroughly develop site, architectural, and engineering plans. The plans would be evaluated against <br />the ordinance and the design variations requested through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. A <br />PUD does allow for deviations from zoning/ordinance requirements, enabling developers to construct <br />projects that may not be possible under traditional zoning regulations. <br /> <br />Financial Impact <br />None <br /> <br />Mission/Policy/Goal <br />Support the growth and development of the community. <br /> <br />Attachments <br />1. Location Map <br />2. Site Plan <br />3. Building Exhibits <br />4. Public Comments <br />5. Handout <br /> <br /> <br />Page 206 of 254