02/09/1994 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD February 9, 1994 the site and recommended approval of the rezoning and subdivision with several conditions as outlined in the Planning Report dated December 6, 1993. Mr. Robinson stated that this was a very nice looking plan and asked if the practice of sharing driveways was common on County Roads. Mr. Brixius explained that we try to encourage this as it is a safer arrangement on a collector or arterial roadway that has heavier traffic volume. Mr. Landers questioned the driveway standards and Kathy Nordine asked if permits had been obtained yet from the County. John Johnson, representing the developer, explained that they had discussions with the County when this project was first presented, a few years ago, and that at that time the County had no problems with the request. At this time they do not have the County permits but anticipate no problems in securing them. Additionally, driveway widths and numbers will be as determined by the County and according to their standards. Kathy Nordine stated that she would like to see landscaping included as a condition of approval. Mr. Johnson explained the landscaping plan and indicated that they will be providing deciduous as well as coniferous trees and berming along the 35W portion of the site. Ed Schones asked what had happened to the petition against the project and why had it been delayed. Mr. Landers explained that the neighbors now want to back -off from the petition. Originally they objected to the project because they wanted to see the Senior Project proceed - since this is not possible, they have meet with the developer and concur that this plan is acceptable. They would, however, like some input as to housing types and styles. In regard to why the matter was tabled, Mr. Johnson explained that when the preliminary plat application was submitted, they were under the impression that the R -4 Zoning was tied to the Senior Project. Therefore, if that project did not go in, the property was R -1. That was not the case so there was a delay necessary to allow the publication and notification time in relation to the rezoning. Mr. Gelbmann stated that he is concern about housing diversity. The Senior Project would have provided some of that diversity and he is disappointed they are not proceeding with the project. Mr. Johnson also explained that the project density is less than 2 units per acre and the average lot size is 17,000 square feet. Mr. Landers made a motion recommending approval of the rezoning from R -4 /PDO to R -1 and was supported by Mr. Gelbmann. All voted aye. Motion carried. 2