Laserfiche WebLink
• Planning & Zoning Board <br />June 9, 1993 <br />• <br />area is rural now and proposed to be so until the year 2010. <br />We have an ordinance that suggests we fill in existing <br />residential areas before expanding. We need to take that into <br />consideration in looking at this request. <br />2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and <br />future land uses of the area. The character of the area will <br />change with this proposed development. Mr. Mesich stated that <br />his area changed when sewer and water came in and he knows it <br />will happen here! <br />3. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and <br />future land uses of the area. Not an issue in this case. <br />4. The proposed use may be accommodated with existing public <br />services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. <br />Services will need to be extended and the cost figures are not <br />yet available - will it be feasible! Additional homes may put <br />a strain on the school district with additional students. <br />5. The fiscal impact of the proposed use provides benefit to <br />the community. Maybe the community, but not the immediate <br />neighborhood. <br />6. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within <br />capabilities of streets serving the property. Concern was <br />expressed by both residents and Board Members regarding <br />increased traffic on Lilac Street and the County's comments <br />that the roads are adequate to serve the proposed <br />construction. <br />John Landers stated that he agreed with Mr. Mesich and was <br />opposed to the proposed development at this time. Jame Schaps <br />stated that 2 1/2 acre lots were obviously planned for this <br />area in the past and he shares the concerns expressed <br />regarding the character of the neighborhood and questions the <br />County's comments concerning traffic. Mr. Mesich added that <br />even though we do not agree with a project, if it is zoned <br />properly we do not have a lot of say. However, in this case, <br />the zoning is not consistent with the request. Jame Schaps <br />added that we need to find a middle ground - and this may not <br />be the right time for it. Al Robinson agreed - maybe in the <br />future, but not right now. Mr. Gelbmann added that the <br />developer has done a very good job in trying to work around <br />the existing wetlands in the area. However, he feels that we <br />need to stick with the Comprehensive Plan in reviewing the <br />item. James Schaps agreed that the development was well <br />presented - much better than some, however, the problem seems <br />8 <br />