07-22-1992 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 1992 reported that when he first purchased his property, the entire area was residential. Fasciana stated that he opposed the rezoning to industrial. The Planner stated that Mr. Fasciana's comments about the developer wanting to move the industrial development closer to the south are correct, however, the City denied this. The Planner also agreed that the City may have dropped the ball in monitoring the development of the industrial property as it occurred; however, pointed out that there is no recourse at this time since the developer is bankrupt. The Planner felt that the only thing the City can do is try to ensure a top - quality development on this remaining strip of residential property. Garske pointed out that the City has recommended that the developer talk to the neighbors. Garske indicated that the property owners in the area say that they are in favor of a residential development on this land, but appear to be fighting it every step of the way. Johnson stated that the neighbors went to a neighborhood meeting last year and talked about things like a berm and buffer zone. The developer appeared willing to do these things, but then dropped the ball. Johnson pointed out that Heritage Development is in the same office building as the previous developer, and that Kevin of Heritage Development contacted the property owners about this development almost a year ago. Heritage had a full year to talk to the neighbors and did not. Johnson asked that Heritage sit down with the neighbors, show the neighbors a buffer zone, where the houses will sit. Johnson pointed out that the neighbors were in agreement with almost everything proposed by the previous developer except the buffer zone. Johnson pointed out that there are lights and noise coming from the industrial property to the north. Johnson did not feel that new houses will sell in this area due to the light and noise problems. Johnson did not feel the new development would work without a buffer zone. Johnson also felt that the City and neighbors deserved to see a final plat before it is approved. The Planner replied that the purpose of this meeting is to review the issues involved. The Planner agreed that the developer could have scheduled a meeting with the neighbors, but pointed out that he is under no obligation to do so. The Planner felt that the developer was picking up the project exactly where it was left off a year ago. The plans submitted include one error, that is the one undersized lot, and the Page 9