Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCII:, <br />AUGUST 25, 2004 <br />Blesener asked how long the flag lot existed. Mr. Lane reported that the <br />lot existed 33 years ago when he first purchased his property. <br />Carl Carlson, buyer of the property, asked if the conditions of approval <br />had to be met prior to his development of the lot. The City Planner <br />indicated that the conditions would have to be met prior to development of <br />the lot. <br />CONCEPT Fahey noted the application for Concept Review for the Rezoning to <br />REVIEW FOR Medium Density Residential (R-2) and towuhome development for <br />REZONING 75 Old County Road C as proposed by Jeff James Construction. It was <br />AND TOWNIIOME noted that the Plamring Commission has recommended denial of the <br />DEVELOPMENT - concept proposal. <br />75 OLD COUNTY <br />ROAD C - Fahey indicated that he was not in favor of the upzoning of property to <br />JEFF JAMES a higher use when the surrounding area consists of Single-Family <br />CONSTRUCTION Residential (R-1). Fahey stated that he could see no basis for upzoning <br /> this property. <br />Jefi'James indicated that the neighborhood concerns that were expressed <br />at the Planning Commission meeting were based on traffc concerns and <br />not density. James indicated that the townhomes he would develop would <br />be marketed to seniors and empty nesters. As a result, the trafFc volumes <br />would be heavier if the property were developed as single-family. <br />James noted that access for this property must be via Old County Road C <br />given the proximity of the raih'oad tracks on County Road C. James also <br />indicated that the density he is proposing is less than what the City Code <br />allows for R-2 property. <br />James indicated that the area is surrounded by .R-2 and R-3 development. <br />Therefore, he felt a rezoning to R-2 was appropriate. James indicated that <br />he is proposing to put in a private road in order to develop the property, <br />therefore, would be paying road and utility costs. James indicated that R-1 <br />development would not be financially feasible. <br />James indicated that the cormnent was made at the Planning Commission <br />meeting that his proposal appeared to be a cookie cutter development. <br />James indicated that he took offense to that comment, and reported that he <br />would construct a development that the City would be proud of. <br />Fahey stated that he assumed James would do a first-class development, <br />but again indicated that he will not support a rezoning to R-2. Fahey <br />stated that the property is zoned R-] and should be developed as such, <br />s <br />