Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />Mar c h 10 , 20 04 <br />Page 16 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />there would be a development in the area. He stated he had built a nice deck on his <br />home, which would now be facing a large building. He expressed concern about <br />emergency vehicle access. <br /> <br />Chair Schaps stated he was guessing th e building would be no larger than Mr. <br />Engelbretson’s home. <br /> <br />Mr. Engelbretson asked if there could be tr ees placed between the building and his home <br />for a natural barrier. He expressed concern about the lights from the parking lot. <br /> <br />Joe Lacroix, 720 79 th Street, asked for clarification on the property line. Mr. Smyser <br />stated the side lot line setback was normally 10 feet and the rear setback was 30 feet, but <br />what was a rear or a side lo t line on this property was diffi cult to determine because of <br />the odd shape of the property. He stated they tried to maintain a 20-foot setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Lacroix expressed concern about the numbe r of buildings on the site. He asked for <br />an explanation as to why this needed to be rezoned. Mr. Smyser explained why it was <br />necessary to rezone this from R-1 to R-2. <br /> <br />Mr. LaCroix asked if this was approved, the bui lding have a variety of architectural style, <br />materials, and colors. <br /> <br />Amy Brandl, 706 79 th , stated there was already a traffic issue on 79 th Street and expressed <br />concern about having more traffic on their street with this developmen t. She stated they <br />were told when they bought their property th at this area was inte nded for single-family <br />homes. She expressed concern when they were digging up the property that she would <br />have another problem with mice and garner sn akes. She asked they limit the amount of <br />residents in this area because of the increase of traffic. <br /> <br />Kirk Nelson, 7010 79 th Street, stated there were too many buildings and they were too <br />close to the lots. He stated he was told the drainage easement would not be developed <br />and he was told this by the developer. Mr . Smyser stated what was being proposed was <br />to reconfigure the drainage easement throughout the lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson expressed concern about a building being too cl ose to his lot line. He <br />expressed concern about the loss of trees to the side of the development. He stated he <br />would put his house up for sale if this devel opment went in. He indicated he was not <br />opposed to some type of a development on this property, but he did not want this <br />development. Chair Schaps stated as much as everyone wanted to have open space <br />around their backyards, it did not happ en unless they owned the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson stated he would lik e to see the trees remain; un it 15 not be so close to his <br />property line; and the drainage easement retained. He stated if they did not impose on the <br />drainage easement, he would not object to th e development. He noted the developer had <br />not done the best at maintaining the pond they created either. <br /> <br />Teri O’Connell, 1000 Main Street, stated she was on the Environmental Board. She <br />indicated the Environmental Boar d’s biggest concern was the cul-de-sac. She stated they