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

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 27 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps reiterated that Mr. Vaughan has been a tremendous neighbor and developer in the City but he felt Mr. Vaughan was asking for too much. He stated he would not be in support of the proposed development under any circumstances in its current status. Mr. Lyden felt if the issue of construction tr affic and noise was the deciding factor for whether developments are approved, there would obviously be no development in the City of Lino Lakes. He stated for him th e real test was whether there was anything positive in the development for the neighborhood, which he felt was not the case with the proposed development. However, this did not mean a person does not have to be rational and fair and look at the facts and make a judgment based on the facts. He stated his primary issue was the zoning and the PDO, which must pass the real approval test. He noted PDO’s have been granted to many developers within the City, such as Trapper’s Crossing. He stated the only trade-off Trapper’s Crossing got for the PDO was a substandard fence and he questioned whether Mr. Vaughan was asking for more or for less. He stated the City must be fair and reasonable and he felt that a PDO made the most sense for the development of an island. Mr. Lyden stated he heard the concerns expressed this evening, which he felt were valid. However, he felt the City must be fair. Mr. Corson stated it was his understanding that zoning actions are judicial actions by a city and was something that most Judges will not deal with. He stated zoning is an action by a city that will affect their future and their plans for how they want their city to grow. He felt if the City did not want seven homes crammed on to a small island, this was the time to stop it. He indicated a rezoning action would be required for the proposed development and he felt this was a discretionary decision by the City. Chair Schaps did not believe the settlement agreement could tie the hands of any of the City’s Boards or the City Council. Otherwise, he believed there would be multiple sections of the Municipal code violated, as well as violation of the due process of law. He stated he understood the intent of the settlement agreement but he did not agreed that it meant the City must rubber stamp any development proposal. Mr. Lyden believed the Judge understood he could not go beyond his jurisdiction by dictating to the City how they should develop the island or whether the island should be developed. However, he noted there is often a difference between what is legal and what is ethical and he felt the Judge, in the spirit of his direction, was clearly looking for what is ethical. Mr. Lyden stated he was looking for a reasona ble, rational, fair and ethical outcome. Mr. Rafferty agreed a PDO would enhance the ability to develop the island. He questioned how tabling the application woul d affect Mr. Vaughan in attempting to find solutions that may work for all parties. He noted the residents did not oppose the use of the land but were concerned that the applicant only be able to develop one lot based on the size requirements of the R-X Zoning Di strict. He questioned what the new Comprehensive Plan showed for the development of the subject parcel. Mr. Smyser