Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />January 9, 2002 <br />Page 18 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />agreement. He indicated the settlement agreement stated the City agreed that it would <br />cooperate with Mr. Vaughan for the residential development of the upland area on the <br />island and for him to develop the land at some point he will need City level approval of <br />rezoning or a PDO. Furthermore, the agreement stated that the City, at least at a staff <br />level, will cooperate with Mr. Vaughan in his efforts to develop that parcel for residential <br />purposes. <br />Mr. Peake acknowledged that this statement in the settlement agreement did not mean <br />Mr. Vaughan has the right to develop the land and ignore the City ordinances or State <br />laws. However, he believed the City has contemplated this development and has agreed <br />to work with Mr. Vaughan toward that end, not completely stop the development. <br />Mr. Peake noted the staff report had included recommended conditions if the Planning <br />and Zoning Board wished to recommend approval of the development. He stated he has <br />reviewed the 17 recommended conditions with Mr. Vaughan and his engineers and they <br />can live with virtually every term within those conditions. He felt if the Board was <br />hesitating on recommending the approval the development of the parcel, then they should <br />approve the project with conditions. He stated this would allow Mr. Vaughan the <br />opportunity to demonstrate to the City that this project can work and would also be <br />consistent with the City’s pledge to work with Mr. Vaughan in getting the project <br />through. <br />Regarding the proposed 17 conditions for approval of this project, Mr. Peake noted there <br />had been a recommendation that the lot lines extend into the street and he had not heard <br />an explanation as to why this would be required. He stated he was not necessarily <br />opposed to this recommendation but he noted the lot sizes comply with the ordinance and <br />he needed to know why this was an issue. <br />Mr. Peake noted the staff report had recommended the construction of a cul-de-sac to <br />allow emergency vehicle traffic in the development. He acknowledged that this would be <br />necessary in order for the project to go through. <br />Mr. Peake stated he was also concerned about the bridge construction and possible <br />contamination of the water. However, he noted Mr. Vaughan has worked with the Rice <br />Creek Watershed District and was willing to work with the City further on addressing <br />these concerns. He stated Mr. Vaughan did not wish to cram this seven-lot development <br />down the City’s throat. He believed over the past ten years Mr. Vaughan has <br />demonstrated this is not his style. <br />Mr. Peake stated the applicant was pleased to submit a custom-grading plan but <br />questioned the requirement for an escrow for the custom graded lots. He felt this was a <br />curious requirement but was willing to consider complying if such an escrow is <br />necessary. <br />Mr. Peake noted there is a great deal of concern regarding the shoreline and the distance <br />of the homes from that shoreline and the possible disturbance of it. He indicated that <br />staff’s recommended condition number 8C would address these concerns by, at a