2014_0421_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment E 19�> order to meet the proposed timeline and approval and permit process. Member Boguszewski questioned 19�i- why the developer's intent or motives should be questioned, or why they would choose to become 195 unpopular in developing something other than they had presented. Member Boguszewski spoke in 196 support of the proposal even while recognizing the fears expressed by the neighbors; however, he noted 197 that this proposal for single-family, market value homes would benefit surrounding properties and 198 increase their market values as well. 19� Member Cunningham disagreed with the comments of Member Boguszewski, opining that this proposed 2oC� action was asking the community to take a risk; and with things always changing, it could prove to be a 20+ negative with zoning LDR-2. Member Cunningham concurred with the comments of Member Keynan in 20�� seeking an alternate option beyond a variance that could mitigate this potential risk in this area intended 20� for single-family residential homes. Member Cunningham stated that she was inclined to vote in 204- opposition to the proposal. 205 Mr. Paschke opined that Member Cunningham was partially right in some sense, but clarified that LDR-2 20� zoning is a single-family residential district as well, and not just for duplexes or other types of housing that 20i appear to be what is feared. Once zoning is changed, Mr. Paschke agreed that there were no guarantees 20E and those fears could become a reality. However, in working with this developer and plans currently 20� under review, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was not reviewing duplexes and twin homes with a much 210 different design. Mr. Paschke further noted that, with the amount of money required of the developer to 21 + provide greater storm water management controls and other site considerations, it would not be prudent 21 � for them to now re-engineer their original plans for single-family residential units on these lots. Mr. 21 � Paschke opined that it was important to have some level of trust with any developer in any district; and 21� also advised that it would be highly unlikely that he or Mr. Lloyd would support a variance for this type of 215 situation, as it didn't meet the test. While a variance may appear on the surfNacey to be a better 216 approach, Mr. Paschke advised that the previous variance laws had changed making them more 217 restrictive with greater testing requirements to allow granting them. While changes can always occur, Mr. 218 Paschke noted that this proposed development fit well into the neighborhood, and LDR-2 zoning achieved 21� the configuration to address and correct storm water drainage issues; while leaving zoning as LDR-1 220 requiring a different lot configuration would be problematic for a variety of issues as previously outlined by 221 Mr. Lloyd. 222 Member Stellmach stated that he was leaning toward LDR-2, opining that the configuration seemed to 223 match the existing neighborhood and lot sizes, and appeared not to increase density. Member Stellmach 22� expressed his trust that single-family homes would be built and lots configured to meet new drainage 22:; management issues in that area. 226 Member Murphy expressed his sympathy for those concerns expressed regarding the future of LDR-2 227 zoning. However, in his review of the current proposal, and whether or not a variance could be supported, 228 Member Murphy noted that the alternative was for smaller lots under LDR-1 zoning that may mean the 229 construction of 4 or 5 McMansions. Member Murphy opined that the lot size proposed seemed consistent, 23C, and he was comfortable supporting the proposal before the Commission. 23� Ayes:6 232 Nays: 1 (Cunningham) 233 Motion carried. Page 5 of 5