2014_0421_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment E 9� with the rubble moved to a construction recycling site or landfill. While not aware of the historic value of 97 the house from the City's perspective, even though it is on an historic trail, Mr. Paschke advised that the 98 structures didn't have any historical significance articulated under national historic preservation laws. 99 If the windmill is planned for demolition, Ms. Metz asked that she be allowed to move it to her property. 1oG Ms. Metz noted that several well-known artists had used the windmill as a model in their artwork; and 10 i speaking for herself and most of her neighbors, they wanted the windmill to stay where it belonged. 102 Mr. Paschke suggested Ms. Metz work with the developer to salvage and/or relocate the windmill. 103 Regarding the timing of the development, Mr. Paschke advised that it would be predicated on when plans 104 were finalized, approved and permitted; and suggested the applicant respond to the proposed timeline 105 from their perspective. 10E At the request of Chair Gisselquist, a representative of the applicant came forward to respond. 107 Grant Johnson, Re/Max Results, representing Developer J. W. Moore 108 Regarding the timeline, Mr. Johnson advised that they hoped to begin construction early this summer and 109 move into the fall. Mr. Johnson advised that the Fire Department had proposed a date in May for removal 11G of the existing structures. 111 Mr. Paschke noted, and the developer's representative confirmed, that the intent was for a mass grading 11 �� of the site. 113 Member Boguszewski encouraged the developer to work with residents to pursue an alternate location for 11c the windmill. 115 Ron Nacey, 2125 William Street 116 Mr. Nacey sought clarification on whether "double housing" meant it was being proposed now or could be 117 in the future. 11� Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the developer's proposal was for single-family homes; and the only reason twin 11� homes or duplexes came up in tonight's discussion was to transparently note that LDR-2 zoning 12C; parameters would allow for them. However, Mr. Lloyd again stated that they were not included as part of 12° this proposed development. 12� At the request of Mr. Nacey, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the City's HRA had nothing to do with this proposed 12� development. 124 Mike Metz 12� Mr. Metz questioned if a variance could be granted and the property remain LDR-1 zoning, since staff had 12� stated that many LDR-1 lots would be considered LDR-2 today. 12i Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively; but clarified that those lots may fail to meet minimum lot requirements, 128 since most were pre-existing from the City's original 1959 zoning code, and variance could be possible to 12� allow for smaller lots. However, Mr. Lloyd opined that it wouldn't be a very good solution, as the variance 13C tool was meant to get to desired ends when other options failed; and were strictly regulated by recently 13+� revised state law. 13� Mr. Metz spoke in support of allowing the development through a variance, and retaining zoning as LDR- 133 1 to meet the aesthetics and lot sizes of neighbors, while avoiding the possibility of higher density. 134 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the lot size and arrangement is not the only reason for the proposed LDR-2 135 zoning, but also in order to relocate drainage easements to provide better function of that storm water 13� management than currently existed, which relied on the narrower lot width requirements on Lots 1, 2, 3 137 and 4 coming up Farrington to site that storm water infrastructure while remaining consistent with existing 13� lot sizes in the neighborhood. 139 No one else appeared to speak; Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. 14C� MOTION 141 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Stellmach to recommend to the City Council 142 APPROVAL of the proposed REZONING, EASEMENT VACATION, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT of the Page 3 of 5