01/09/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 26 APPROVED MINUTES has a great deal of respect for City sta ff for their past work, even though he did not support the condemnation action. He stated he was concerned for both the residents and the applicant and suggested the proposal be tabled and efforts be made to come up with solutions that will work for all parties. Ms. Lane stated she was not privy to the agreement in the Court order but she noted the order required City staff to work with the property owner to develop the land but not to change the zoning for seven lots. She believed City staff has worked with the applicant on this development. She agreed that the lot is buildable under the current zoning and she could not support the number of variances being requested. Chair Schaps stated Mr. Vaughan has been a good citizen in the community for a long time and has built and developed premiere neighborhoods in the City. However, he was concerned about the number of items that would be impacted by proposed development, including the residents. He noted none of the residents present this evening supported the development as proposed, although they were not opposed to one house being developed on the property. Chair Schaps stated he understood Mr. Peake’s position regarding the litigation involved. He stated he has not seen the agreement but per the language presented this evening the agreement only required City staff support. He did not believe anyone could argue successfully against the fact that City staff has supported the applicant with this development. He indicated City staff has been working with the applicant for several weeks on this application and has prepared a multi-page report with recommendations. He did not feel this was an issue and he was not concerned about potential litigation. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board needed to be concerned with whether or not the project meets the ordinances and, if not, to consider the fact that a PDO development should involved fair trade-offs. He did not feel the proposed trade offs, such as tree preservation data, were in any way sufficient for what was being requested. He noted a private road was being requested, which there were not many of in the City. He stated this was due to lack of continuity of public services, condition and care, as well the notion of developing a private neighborhood w ithin public neighborhoods. He stated it has always been City staff’s opinion that th e City should not have any jurisdiction over private roads because they do not want to have to deal with the private associations that dictate their own control. Chair Schaps stated the shoreland impact was his primary reason for opposing the development. He noted the applicant was requesting a 75-foot variance to a 150-foot minimum setback requirement. He stated this development would not just impact the adjacent neighborhood, rather it would impact a series of neighborhoods that are surrounded by wetlands and lakes that flow eventually to the river. He felt the neighborhood impact would be significant and l ong-term. He noted just the construction of the bridge alone would likely take a very long time to complete, more than any of the residents would be willing to put up with. He stated he would not be surprised if he would be able to hear the construction fr om his property, which would not please him.