Laserfiche WebLink
should stay with the current setback requirements. He suggested that the street widths be <br />associated with density. <br /> <br />Councilmember S trommen inquired if the Council would retain control over which standards <br />would apply for each development. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that currently the only thing that is allowing the standards <br />to be discussed is the PUD that is before them. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that if the Council or the Planning Commission did not feel that what was <br />being proposed was safe they could state what would be appropriate. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that the City could make exceptions using the PUD process so he <br />questioned why they would include additional standards in the ordinance. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that staff is looking for direction fi~om the Council as to <br />what is the absolute minimum street width the City will allow. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson inquired if there was parking restrictions on one side of the street in <br />other areas of the City. <br /> <br />Street Supervisor Reimer reviewed which streets have restricted parking. <br /> <br />Director of Public Works/Fire Chief Kapler stated that they could stay with the current standards, <br />but grant an exception with the Village of Sunfish Lake development because it is a PUD. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that he would like to see the ordinance remain as is, but have the <br />information available as standards for future PUD requests. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that the City has to treat all developers the same. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig agreed. He felt that having the road width based on density of being PUD <br />would be appropriate. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec felt that they should use the standards as a guideline. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak agreed that they should use the standards as a guideline for future <br />developments without it being included in the ordinance. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Pearson, to recommend that the <br />street standards presented by staff be used as guidelines for future development. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Elvig stated that if the motion were to say PUD as opposed <br />to all development he could support it. Councilmember Cook replied that by doing that the City <br />would be forcing someone to go through the PUD process to have a narrower road. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/February 18, 2003 <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />