02/13/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 26 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 ding the litigation involved. He stated he has not seen the agreement but per the 1 e presented this evening the agreement only required City staff support. He di • + bey anyone could argue successfully against the fact that City staff has s spo d the ; plicant with this development. He indicated City staff has been ng with the applicant for several weeks on this application and has prepare ` multi- report with recommendations. He did not feel this was an issue and he wa fined about potential litigation. He stated the Planning and Zoning Bo • eede ° o b concerned with whether or not the project meets the ordinances and � to co 'der the fact that a PDO development should involved fair trade -offs. _ el the proposed trade offs, such as tree preservation data, were in ._ s,,'ent for what was being requested. He noted a private road was being retested, there were not many of in the City. He stated this was due to lack of con 9ity f public services, condition and care, as well the notion of developing a private neigh ood within public neighborhoods. He stated it has always been City staff's opinion that the 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 long -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 from his property, which would not please him. 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.