CCP 06-08-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-, Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 3, 1987 Page 7 VALENTINE HILLS Member Meury stated that he is a resident of the area . (CONTINUED) and it is his opinion that because the entire area is developed with single family homes. a townhouse development would be poor planning and receive negative response from the residents of the area. Member Martin suggested the proposed ponding area could be'dredged in the area defined as "Park"; suggested Dnistran could approach the City relative to developing that area and in return he may be able to develop a larger portion of the land for single family dwellings. Commission members discussed the elevation of the site in reference to the elevation on the Janet Court development, Planner Miller noted that this land is not a designated wetland area; however, City policy has been not to allow significant filling in lowland/wetland area unless something close to identifiable building sites are available. The potential applicant is offering an alternative, with same density or lessor density than the single family proposal, that offers less negative impact on the site. Miller noted there are several engineering issues that would still have to be addressed. There was discussion of drainage problems in the area with the McKloskey property and problems with the buildability of the lots on Janet Court cul-de-sac, as well as on Valentine Court. . It was the general consensus of the Commission that a Townhouse development would not be conducive with ~he single family residential neighborhood; they agreed that the potential applicant consider pursuing single family lot development in the area. keeping in mind the required 40 ft. front setback and demonstrating the feasibility of the plan without creating water flow problems in the area. Dnistran asked for direction as to the level of development Commission would .favor and if variances would be considered. Member Meury stated that all the homes in the area maintain the 40 ft. setback. Member Petersen noted that the homes on Tiller Lane were granted variances for the identical reasons stated this evening. The Planner stated that in this instance the hardship of the land cleatly exists, however the engineering computations would have to work both ways. Burden of proof that the setback variance works with less negative impact on the surrounding area rests with the applicant. Member Martin commented that usually a variance is requested because a lot of record is unbuildable without the requested variance; however, in this instance the potential applicant is trying to create new lots that already have the problem built in, as opposed to Commission dealing with lots already of record and trying to make them buildable. . Dnistran thanked the Commission members for their input and direction. ------