Laserfiche WebLink
existing landowners a fair degree of increased density. In his mind this is inconsistent with what <br />the City is trying to accomplish with PUD developments. He stated the applicant will need to deal <br />with the wetland buffer issue, and the density transition issue will further create some problems. <br />He noted a PUD would be an appropriate remedy in a situation such as fitting in an appropriate <br />development for a particular area, where because of the wetland buffer ordinance and density <br />transitioning the developer may not be able to get the value of the land. The City would then <br />work with the developer to accomplish the setbacks needed from a wetland and for density <br />transitioning, possibly pushing some of the density to the interior and reducing setbacks. He <br />stated this sketch plan shows exactly the opposite. The density is pushed to the outside of the <br />development with all of the key lots with aesthetics to the inside. This completely excludes all of <br />the value of this wonderful feature of Sunfish Lake from the surrounding landowners. He cannot <br />support this sketch plan at this point at any level. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges stated Shorewalk, LLC would like the opportunity over the next few months to look at <br />some physical structures within other communities that may be complimentary in this area. They <br />would like to work with the neighborhood in regards to alternatives for a plan like this. If the <br />community does not see what Shorewalk, LLC is trying to capture here as complimentary with <br />the neighborhood, they would go back to a more traditional plan. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated the Commission has provided the preliminary assessment of the sketch <br />plan. Mr. Feges can do as he would like, but he will likely have a difficult time getting anything <br />through the Commission with a favorable recommendation as the sketch plan is currently <br />comprised unless the community responds favorably and there are improvements to the sketch <br />plan. He stated he is struggling to even support an 8-plex in this location. He will have a hard <br />time putting density in areas where he does not think it belongs, and this is one of those areas. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated the larger issue is still one of principal. If the City does not stick <br />with the existing zoning in areas that are zoned R-1, they open the door to PUDs everywhere else <br />in the City. There is no way he would approve this site as a PUD unless the applicant provides a <br />compelling reason for the rezoning. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine stated as far as he is concerned this is not the area for 12-plexes. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges stated this development would have appeal and would be something the Council and <br />community would be proud of. He respects the comments of the Commission and understands <br />the issue with the PUD and will reassess that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated the Commission does not have an issue with density or <br />experimenting with different structures. In fact, at times the Commission has indicated the need <br />for more density, but that is in places where it has been deemed appropriate for density. He does <br />not have a major issue with townhomes in a development like this, but this sketch plan appears to <br />be quite extreme. As it stands he could not support this sketch plan. <br /> <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 3, 2005 <br />Page 10 of 27 <br /> <br />