03/13/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 18 agreement. He indicated the settlement agreement stated the City agreed that it would cooperate with Mr. Vaughan for the residential development of the upland area on the island and for him to develop the land at some point he will need City level approval of rezoning or a PDO. Furthermore, the agreement stated that the City, at least at a staff level, will cooperate with Mr. Vaughan in his efforts to develop that parcel for residential purposes. Mr. Peake acknowledged that this statement in the settlement agreement did not mean Mr. Vaughan has the right to develop the land and ignore the City ordinances or State laws. However, he believed the City has contemplated this development and has agreed to work with Mr. Vaughan toward that end, not completely stop the development. Mr. Peake noted the staff report had included recommended conditions if the Planning and Zoning Board wished to recommend approval of the devel mew He stated he has reviewed the 17 recommended conditions with Mr. Vaugha . • his e & ineers and they can live with virtually every term within those condition e fe ` ', t Board was hesitating on recommending the approval the developer , t • a • . el, then they should approve the project with conditions. He stated this A =foul'• owe r. Vaughan the opportunity to demonstrate to the City that this roje can and would also be consistent with the City's pledge to work wit .'• han in getting the project through. Regarding the proposed 17 conditions f• .pprov;, of this project, Mr. Peake noted there had been a recommendation that h - nd into the street and he had not heard an explanation as to why this • • • - • red. He stated he was not necessarily opposed to this recommen • s + , b e noted the lot sizes comply with the ordinance and he needed to know why . an is e. Mr. Peake noted t po ad recommended the construction of a cul -de -sac to allow emergency vehie raffic in the development. He acknowledged that this would be necessary in o •r the oject to go through. Mr. Peake stated e was also concerned about the bridge construction and possible contamination of e water. However, he noted Mr. Vaughan has worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District and was willing to work with the City further on addressing these concerns. He stated Mr. Vaughan did not wish to cram this seven -lot development down the City's throat. He believed over the past ten years Mr. Vaughan has demonstrated this is not his style. Mr. Peake stated the applicant was pleased to submit a custom - grading plan but questioned the requirement for an escrow for the custom graded lots. He felt this was a curious requirement but was willing to consider complying if such an escrow is necessary. Mr. Peake noted there is a great deal of concern regarding the shoreline and the distance of the homes from that shoreline and the possible disturbance of it. He indicated that staff's recommended condition number 8C would address these concerns by, at a