11/25/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PRD Meeting 11-25-02 Page 19 my thinking. Good planning by either the developer, Planning Commission or Council could sort of rearrange things a little bit so you're pretty much within the intent of a zoning classification with a little give on take on different things-whether it be setbacks or, you know, maybe even a small number as far as that is concerned if it weighed out against some additional amenities of some sort, whatever that maybe, so that you didn't have to just tow the letter of the law but it also-you know, follow the intent of the thing. It pretty much follows even the section, the very first section in this Chapter 1159 which, you know, talks about the intent. The first paragraph is to promote flexibility and design, permit plan diversification and site location units and that sort of thing. Something else you might want to consider-I guess the last thing I really wanted to mention brought some concern, especially when it came to minimum lot sizes, whether it be 33 acres, 1 acre, 6 or whatever. One of the concerns that came up was, you know, if you put in too large of a requirement then perhaps what you're doing is encouraging people to consolidate areas that may not otherwise be consolidated and meet the minimum requirements. Say if you had a 3, 4 or 5-acre parcel and we required 6 or 7; you know, if you buy something and just so you have enough area then to develop it. And along with that thinking is-what about some of our residential areas-what's to stop someone from going into an area of one of our residential streets and, you know, taking up 8 or 10 lots, whatever this would take to meet the minimum area requirements and ask for it to be rezoned to this type of development. In that 1159.01(b) we did stick a sentence in there, the last sentence in that subsection (b) is that under the intent of this thing is that these Planned Residential Developments are traditional, transitional use and appropriate along major or arterial and collector streets and not designed for local residential streets. We felt that in itself was enough to hopefully keep anyone from trying to consolidate any number of residential lots in one of our residential neighborhoods to rezone and try to get this type of development in the middle of a residential neighborhood. That pretty much concludes what I had to say, to bring you up as much as I could on what happened and where we are at with submittals to Planning & Zoning. I am happy to answer any questions that I can and we have our Chairman and a couple of our members in the audience. [He was referring to Jim Farmer, P&Z Chairman, Jerry Catalano and Wes Marrotte.) Mr. Marrie asked, Bernie, could Iask aquestion-maybe of Jim? On this comment you made on the very last on 1159 about not being in residential areas, does that have to be written into this set of documents now to make it concrete? Mr. Samac said it's in here right now. Mr. Marrie said yes I know, but Imean-does that have to be voted onis that in there now? Mr. Samac said that's in there now. What I think is before Council, beside from anything they want to do is the fact that what was submitted by Planning & Zoning, those numerical items that need to be plugged in, a number is going to have to be come up with, to plug in there.... Mr. Marrie said how many acres and how many units per acre. Mr. Samac said how many acres, how many units; some of these other items you may want to look at-discuss, change, modify, whatever your desire-that you feel is needed in the ordinance.