07-14-1994 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planing&Zoning Board May 11,1994 Street. There will need to be some improvements made. He added that he does not see alot of additional density in the area and the developer would be required to pay for the improvements to the roadway. Ed Schones stated that he is angry with the assumption by some that this is a done deal. He agrees with some of the speakers. It seems to me that the R-1X Zoning should prevail and we are being asked to consider some large variances with the PDO. He has a problem with that. He would be prepared to make a motion of denial. John Landers stated that he is uncomfortable with how the zoning took place and would agree with Mr. Schones. Tom Mesich stated that we need to go with the advise of our City Attorney who indicated that the zonings were proper. He added that if we are going to give leeway - it should be toward larger lots not smaller ones. He agreed with full compliance with the R-1X requirements. Rick Gelbmann agreed that we need to follow the direction of our City Attorney and believes we should abide by the R-1X Zoning. The PDO is being requested because of the wetlands and the difficulties the site location imposes. However, he is not in favor of a PDO and would like to refer the plat back to the staff to refine the plan and adhere to the R-1X requirements. Al Robinson stated that he agrees with the PDO request. We can not go back to 2 1/2, 3 , or 5 acre lots. Kathy Nordine asked what our requirements are for a PDO and indicated that she would like to see some of the variances reduced. Al Brixius explained that the PDO offers some opportunity to provide a creative design. This particular request provides variation that is not that significant based on the overall design. Chairman Schaps stated that the zoning question is a dead issue. In regard to the PDO there are two forces - the rights of property owners to develop and the rights of property owners to quiet use of their property. The 300 lots/year is not the issue here. The project will be developed in phases and may not start until next year. This development needs flexibility because of the wetlands but the variances on the individual lots can be eliminated. I think it would be more appropriate to table the item until next meeting. I would 6