Laserfiche WebLink
site, but that the applicants should give some consideration to the option of providing additional screening <br />within the Sugarwoods outlot. Gaffron indicated another concern deals with the retaining walls that range <br />from one foot to six feet right up against the property line. GalTron noted there is not room to screen <br />those walls and that the Planning Commission should discuss whether screening is necessary in that area. <br />Rahn stated he would like to see an elevation view of both of those areas as well as the landscaping plan. <br />which could be done prior to final plat approval. Rahn indicated he is not willing to approve anything at <br />this point that mentions the words building permit. <br />Gundlach stated that language is based on the commercial site plan regulation for the B-l District. <br />Gaffron noted final plat drawings would show the individual building puds. <br />Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission would need to approve or deny all four items listed in <br />the January 18,2005 Planner’s Report. <br />Gaffron stated they would be acting on all four items. <br />Rahn noted the applicants have indicated that diey feel tlie outstanding items can be addressed in a <br />relatively short time. Kahn indicated he is not opposed to moving this forward to the council for their <br />input, noting that this plan would come back before die Piaiming Commission for final plat approval. <br />Kali'i recommended submittal ofthe association’s covenants also be made a condition of approval. <br />Apple inquired what action would be taken on die use of the name Sugai*woods and the potential for <br />additional traffic to be generated into the residential neighborhood. <br />Rahn recommended the Sugarwoods homeowners attend the City Council meeting and voice their <br />concerns. Rahn stated he is unsure what power the Planning Commission has over the name of the <br />project. <br />Bremer stated die Planning Commission could require certain signage. <br />Gaffron stated since this is a PUD, the Couucil could possibly request that die name be changed if they <br />feel it is a big enough issue. <br />Rahn moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend approval of AppllcatioD B-6 PUD general <br />concept plan approval, preliminary plat approval in order to create 10 unit lots and one common <br />.i