Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />May 11, 1994 <br />Street. There will need to be some improvements made. He <br />added that he does not see alot of additional density in the <br />area and the developer would be required to pay for the <br />improvements to the roadway. <br />Ed Schones stated that he is angry with the assumption by some <br />that this is a done deal. He agrees with some of the <br />speakers. It seems to me that the R -1X Zoning should prevail <br />and we are being asked to consider some large variances with <br />the PDO. He has a problem with that. He would be prepared to <br />make a motion of denial. <br />John Landers stated that he is uncomfortable with how the <br />zoning took place and would agree with Mr. Schones. <br />Tom Mesich stated that we need to go with the advise of our <br />City Attorney who indicated that the zonings were proper. <br />He added that if we are going to give leeway - it should be <br />toward larger lots not smaller ones. He agreed with full <br />compliance with the R -1X requirements. <br />Rick Gelbmann agreed that we need to follow the direction of <br />our City Attorney and believes we should abide by the R -1X <br />Zoning. The PDO is being requested because of the wetlands <br />and the difficulties the site location imposes. However, he <br />is not in favor of a PDO and would like to refer the plat back <br />to the staff to refine the plan and adhere to the R -1X <br />requirements. <br />Al Robinson stated that he agrees with the PDO request. We <br />can not go back to 2 1/2, 3, or 5 acre lots. <br />Kathy Nordine asked what our requirements are for a PDO and <br />indicated that she would like to see some of the variances <br />reduced. Al Brixius explained that the PDO offers some <br />opportunity to provide a creative design. This particular <br />request provides variation that is not that significant based <br />on the overall design. <br />Chairman Schaps stated that the zoning question is a dead <br />issue. In regard to the PDO there are two forces - the rights <br />of property owners to develop and the rights of property <br />owners to quiet use of their property. The 300 lots /year is <br />not the issue here. The project will be developed in phases <br />and may not start until next year. This development needs <br />flexibility because of the wetlands but the variances on the <br />individual lots can be eliminated. I think it would be more <br />appropriate to table the item until next meeting. I would <br />6 <br />