Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />A ugu st 11, 2 004 <br />Page 8 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br />Staff stated applicant had re quested approval of a single-fa mily residential development <br />called Fox Den Acres. This is a new submittal of a plan that is different from the <br />previous design reviewed several months a go. The comprehensive plan guides the site <br />for low-density residential use and it is zone d R-1. The site is in the existing MUSA. <br /> <br />A public hearing is required for a preliminar y plat. Unfortunatel y, staff neglected to <br />publish a public hearing notice fo r this meeting and it will publish this for the September <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Staff noted they typically do not recommend approval until they receive the preliminary <br />approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District and they had not received approval by the <br />Watershed for this project. In addition, th ere are some design issues that must be <br />addressed. Therefore, staff would be r ecommending continuing the project to the <br />September meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden asked about the negative impact of vacating the easement on Block 4. Mr. <br />Smyser replied they did not fully know what all of the implications would be, but this <br />would be one of the things they looked at under the conservation approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz expressed concern about getting the same set of plans back that they had <br />looked at previously and being e xpected to feel differently about the project. He stated <br />his concerns were still there, including traffic, and had not been addressed in this new <br />proposal. He asked if they were doing the right thing by developi ng this land and making <br />the traffic worse. Mr. Grochala replied th ere were a number of i ssues on the previous <br />proposal for denial, with traffi c being only one of those issu es and quite a few of those <br />issues had been addressed in this new proposal. <br /> <br />Bob Schack, 763 Fox Road, stated he found out about this meeting two days ago. He <br />stated the association was not trying to st op this development, but they wanted to <br />minimize the impact to their development. He noted they had concerns about waterflow <br />into their basements on the east side. He e xpressed concern about the impact of this <br />development on their existing ponds. He expre ssed concern about the increase of traffic <br />and requested they address the one access into and out of the development. Mr. Grochala <br />replied staff had been working on the waterflow of the site. He stated they were trying to <br />minimize large holding ponds and get water flowing through the site. <br /> <br />Mike Black, applicant, stated developers we re used to the regula tory process and the <br />more that was regulated would make it easier to work through the pr ocess. He indicated <br />developers needed to look at their process, investment and what they were trying to <br />accomplish also. He noted developers also liked plans that did not require variances. He <br />stated this development was a very low-de nsity development they were proposing. He <br />indicated they were not reque sting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment with this new plan <br />as they had in the past and he believed that had been a major concern of the City. He <br />stated they had 8 less lots, the wetland imp act was about the same, and the grading plan <br />had been addressed. He stated they had met with staff and they had another meeting set <br />up for next week to discuss the open space. He stated as a developer he liked the <br />regulatory process and the give and take process being propo sed in the open space plan