04-25-07 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 25, 2007 Gores asked about the PUD reference in the City Planner's report. Blesener noted that the Planner indicated that the developer has the option of requesting a PUD. The City Planner indicated that a PUD is an overlay by Conditional Use Permit and not a rezoning of the property. The Planner noted that this was a discussion point in his report, and not something that the developer has requested. Gores indicated that there may be some contaminated soils on the Richie property given that Mr. Richie had conducted auto repair work from this property. The City Administrator indicated that if there is contamination, there would have to be a determination of the responsible party. Gores indicated that not everything fits into a master plan, and there may need to be room for exceptions when dealing with a unique piece of property. Blesener indicated that there may be other properties in the area with the potential for development, and it is the City's responsible to provide for this potential when possible. Roycraft noted that the LaBore Road property owners to the west of proposed Richie Place are not hear this evening. Roycraft agreed that these property owners had the right to develop their land, but noted that due to wetland and grade considerations, it is not possible to connect a road to Arcade Street, and it may be very difficult to extend a cul-de-sac into the area and still meet Code requirements. Blesener felt there was too much conflicting wetland information being presented this evening, and indicated that he was not prepared to act on the concept. Blesener felt that the City needed better information on the location of the wetlands to determine where road connections could be provided for the properties to the east and west. Montour noted that any action on the concept would be contingent upon Watershed approval. Montour indicated that if the stub road connections would impact wetland areas, those locations will have to be changed. Montour felt the concept review boils down to whether or not the City wants stub roads to provide for access to the east and west. Montour felt that the concept of the thoroughfare plan for the area should be followed, and development potential for adjacent properties provided for. The developer will have to work with the wetland contingencies in refining his concept. The City Administrator indicated that the problem with concept review is that all the specific details, such as wetland location, engineering, are not know. The purpose of the concept review is to provide direction to the developer on issues such as cul-de-sac length, stub roads, etc. The 7