09-24-2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 necessary. As part of their permitting process, the Watershed may require a 50-foot average rear yard setback for this lot. Fahey indicated it was his understanding that given the property is less than an acre in size, a Watershed permit would not be necessary. The Planner indicated that he has not discussed this property with the Watershed, but felt they would try to apply their 50-foot average standard to any development of the site. Fahey stated that his concern is with the Edgewater Townoffice Development and other adjacent commercial development west of Park Street, that an R-1 or R-2 zoning was spot zoning and not appropriate for this lot. Fahey indicated that he did not understand the City Planner's recommendation in favor of the rezoning. Given the size of this property, Fahey felt that the only way to appropriately develop it would be for a cooperative development between adjacent property owners. Fahey felt that development of a house on this lot would lead to problems in the futw~e relative to the problems of residential development adjacent to commercial such as noise, traffic, etc. Fahey stated that he agreed with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. LaValle asked why this property was not made a part of the R. 7. Marco development. Tucito was not sure. Fahey indicated that he had a discussion with Dave Rustad, the adjacent property owner, and informed him that he would not support townhomes for the redevelopment of his property. Fahey felt the Rustad property was more appropriately utilized for office or commercial development. Fahey also commented that he did not view this small lot as a transitional use between the commercial uses west of Park Street. Fahey again stated that the solution would be for the adjacent property owners to get together on a development project. The City Planner indicated that the basis for his recommendation in favor of the rezoning is that as a stand-alone project there is nothing more that can be done with this parcel other than residential development. Fahey felt that that is why a cooperative project between adjacent landowners was the answer. Anderson asked about traffic concerns on Park Street. The City Planner noted that the City has always had concerns about commercial traffic on Park Street and made efforts to minimize that traffic. Fahey suggested that a redevelopment project that would direct traffic to County Road C would result in a wi~r/win situation.