Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />June 13, 2001 <br />Page 28 <br />Staff indicated the Environmental Board reviewed the project on January 3, 2001. The <br />Environmental Specialist's memo included the Board's comments. <br />Chair Schaps asked if the developer had been asked about eliminating Lot 8 as opposed to a <br />variance. Mr. Smyser replied there were a couple previous designs of this project the developer <br />had discussed with staff including a number of accesses onto the road. Staff worked out with <br />them to remove most of them. If they make the access on Lot 2 go onto the cul-de-sac, then only <br />Lot 8 and 1 would access the roads themselves. All of the other lots would meet the <br />requirements. There were wetland issues to be addressed also. Because of the safety issues that <br />were addressed with this design, staff was supportive of the variance than the other designs that <br />would require more accesses onto the roadways. He indicated this had been negotiated with the <br />developer. <br />Mr. Lyden expressed concern that Lot 1, 2 and 8 were not a part of the neighborhood. He <br />suggested Lot 8 be made part of Lots 7 and 9 and incorporate Lot 1 and 2 and face Lot 2 to the <br />cul-de-sac. This would make a neighborhood. <br />Mr. Lyden asked about the Gemini Estates tree issue and stated.that issue needed to be done <br />prior to any approval of this development. <br />Jeff Ruus (?sp), developer's representative, replied the_ 'Were requesting they proceed with the <br />variance request. He said if they combined lots, they- yvould end up .with crooked lot lines and <br />this was not desirable either. With respect to Gemini Estates, he had no information regarding <br />this. <br />7 <br />Ms. Lane stated while she also believed in deve opiiigneighborhoods, she believed Lots 8 and <br />Lots 1 would become part of the neighb rhoods along side of them and may not specifically be a <br />part of this neighborhood. <br />Mr. Zych agreed that Lots 1 anda2.should:be.combined because of their size, but had no opinion <br />about Lot 8. <br />Mr. Corson agreed that Lots 1and 2ahould be combined due to safety issues. Mr. Ruus stated <br />lot designs did not create neighborhoods. He stated the plat met every ordinance, except one. <br />dimension. He stated they could do some lot line manipulation that would meet their criteria, but <br />believed this plat was the solution. He indicated they might have misunderstood what the City <br />wanted. <br />Mr. Lyden asked if the cul-de-sac could be brought the opposite way. Mr. Ruus stated that had <br />not been looked at and he was not sure if the previous designer had looked at those options or <br />not. He stated they were limited however by wetlands and topography. He also indicated that by <br />doing that, he did not believe it would eliminate access off of 12th and Holly. <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported by <br />Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he would like to see the lot lines realigned to create a better neighborhood. <br />He would strongly support that effort so it would all come off of the same cul-de-sac. Mr. Ruus <br />