01-11-2006 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 10, 2006 --------------------------- Commissioner Scott asked if the square footage of the units was available. Mr. Pacheco stated he did not have that information available at this time. Chair Anderson asked if the exterior building materials meet the R3 standards. Mr. Harlicker stated that the project includes the required mix of materials, but that he did not have the exact percentages available. Mr. Pacheco stated that they will meet the R3 standards and that this could be included in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Offerman felt that the wetland enhancements and rain gardens were amenities, since the applicant could have done ponds. Also, the applicant is constructing the frontage road at their cost, and is extending it into Big Lake Township. Also, the sidewalks are amenities. Mr. Pacheco stated that a plaza with ornamental trees and pavers will be included, in addition to paying the required park dedication fees. Commissioner Stevens asked what the distance was between the units. Mr. Pacheco stated that there is 30 feet between the actual living spaces. Mr. Harlicker noted that a 5-foot garage side yard setback is required for most urban lots. Mr. Pacheco stated that he felt they have addressed each of the staff’s concerns and that any small issues could be dealt with administratively. Chair Anderson asked how many buildings encroach the wetland buffer. Mr. Harlicker stated that one building is slightly into the buffer setback. Commissioner Scott asked if the buildings inside the loop could be pulled up further north to get the one building to the south out of the setback. Mr. Pacheco stated that would not be possible due to the location of the electrical easement. Commissioner Offerman stated that he did not feel the risk of encroachment into the wetlands would be an issue, since the lawn maintenance would be done by a professional service. Commissioner Stevens stated that he would like to have seen at least of portion of the site remain for commercial use. He stated that he also would like to have seen units 13 and 28 removed to allow more space in the center island, although it appears the developer has done the best he could. He stated that he understood this was a tough site to deal with. Commissioner Scott stated that he was leaning toward approval, because of the type of project proposed, and given the fact there is so much residential surrounding the site. He noted that he did feel that at some point in the future, the site may have been marketed for commercial. Commissioner Offerman stated that he was in favor of approval. He stated that the Planning staff’s and City Engineer’s concerns have been addressed. He felt the applicant has presented a good case as to why the site is not viable for commercial development. He did not feel that they were giving up a major opportunity. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he agreed with most of Commissioner Offerman’s comments. He questioned whether the four easterly units encroached in the wetland setbacks. He agreed this was a challenging parcel to address. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he had no other concerns that would prevent support of the project.