Laserfiche WebLink
6. Mr. Peltier does own all of the land, however it is zoned both R-1 and <br />RR. Are we setting a precident that we may later regret by allowing a <br />developer to pond on land which is zoned different than that which he is <br />developing at the present time? We see no reason to have his 3rd Addition <br />zoning changed and therefore feel that it may be in the best interest to <br />have his ponding take place in the 2nd Addition, that parcel which he is <br />developing. <br />According to code 401.220 B3 point C "a proposed design feature is to have <br />provisions for surface water disposal, drainage, and flood control within <br />the boundaries of the proposed property division". We believe that this <br />indicates the pond is not to be outside of addition 2, but rarher inside <br />addition 2 and it does not meet code. <br />7. Culverts not drawn in and how much is he allowing to come down Legion <br />Avenue and into your drainage, pond, house. <br />- We believe the preliminary plat for Packard Park should be denied on the <br />above reasons and further we question the manner in which the rezoning of <br />Mr. Peltier's land was accomplished. According to code 301.060D4 all <br />property owners within 350 feet of the property being discussed at a <br />- public hearing need to be notified of the public hearing. However, when <br />the notices for the rezoning of Peltier's property were sent, the Durands, <br />Voges and myself were not notified. Mr. Folz should have given these <br />names to the city officials, but he neglected to do so. <br />