03/13/2002 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 being developed on the property. Chair Schaps stated he understood Mr. Peake's positi . eg.'nt t' litigation involved. He stated he has not seen the agreement but per th Ong prented this evening the agreement only required City staff support. He id n th bell - ' anyone could argue successfully against the fact that City staff ha ire the applicant with this development. He indicated City staff has orkin_'r ith the applicant for several weeks on this application and has prep. `dam -page report with recommendations. He did not feel this was an issue and he } . s not +ncerned about potential litigation. He stated the Planning and Zoning B .. ee+ °+e concerned with whether or not the project meets the ordinances •, +nsider the fact that a PDO development should involved fair trade- ! not feel the proposed trade offs, such as tree preservation data, were i private road was bei this was due to lac of developing a privat always been C -. ff's private roads be y su`cient for what was being requested. He noted a which there were not many of in the City. He stated of public services, condition and care, as well the notion ighborhood within public neighborhoods. He stated it has off» ion that the City should not have any jurisdiction over y do not want to have to deal with the private associations that dictate their own • ontrol. 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.