PCMin_82May3 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 1982 PAGE 4 • Carl Dale states that certain conditions should be applied to the variances requested just as you would for a PUD. These include proper maintenance of the .open space, review of the administrative procedures of the homeowner's association. He then refers to his April 23rd report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding zero lot lines, prohibiting identical homes (size and architectural style) side-by--side, and better than average yard landscaping being required. These and other specific recommendations are contained in his report. Mary Waldo asked Mr. Dale if there was any track record as to whether people will buy homes built with zero lot lines as compared to town- houses and Mr. Dale answered that the market had simply not been tested but feels the houses will sell since the market for the big house on the big lot is depressed. He makes reference to Mr. Westin's comments on employment conditions in r'alcon Heights which will make the housing market ~*ood in the City. Larry Stowe, representing the Neighborhood Task Force, stated that they have been deeply concerned regarding the development of the Hawkins-Hermes property. Throughout all the discussions, it has been pointed out the necessity of having guidelines and criteria established before starting with specific plans. He feels that when the Council turned down the PUD that would have been the time for these guidelines to be established and he is dismayed by the time sequence of events both on the agenda and by the overall action that is being taken on this tract of land. The guidelines should be discussed before the building plans and, therefore, the guidelines are being established after-the~€act. They still feel that a PUD is the way to develop this entire tract of land and just because one PUD was turned down because of overall density, there are many other alternate PUDs to be proposed and developed for this area. They are still recommending a !~0 percent increase in density or a total number of dwelling units to be 1l~0-14s. He is dismayed that the property is being developed piece-meal, bit by bit, parcel by parcel, without any consideration to an overall view of the acreage. It is his understanding that a variance is to provide a variation of individual lots taking into account the possible pecu7arities of the individual lots but not for an alleged peculiarity of an entire area Governing somE; 18 acres. Furthermore, variances are not granted to serve the mere convenience of an applicant but variances are rather granted for the purpose of alleviating the demonstrable hardship and demon:~trable difficulties. There are not these demonstrable hardships or difficulties in this area. Therefore, in considering these variances for American Shelter, the Planning Commission is rezoning the area in essence by spot zoning on a large scale. He wants to know specifically what will be developed in the outlot left if the Planning Commission approves the variances. He wants the Planning Commission to look at overall acreage not a piece- meal approach and feels a PUD is the most acceptable way to go. Al Stefanson reiterates that Parcel #2 is presently being considered, which CARL DALE CITY PLANNER LARRY S TOV~JE, Iv'EIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE