Laserfiche WebLink
nzzN~rrEs <br />City Counci.l. <br />Dec. ].8, 1984 <br />Lee Rezontng development as the Counci.l sees f:i.t. The area could be zoned a PUU <br />(Cont.) wher.e the Ci.ty could have control. <br />P4r. Ilanson commented that i.f the proper.ty remains residential, the <br />issue will come bacic Uefore the Council again. <br />Mr. Lee pointed out that he i.s provi.ding a 60 foot buffer zone from the <br />Pasciana property. Mr. I'asciana dici not feel this was enou~;h< Nfr. <br />Lee stated that he ~aas not opposed to a 100 foot buffer. Lee also <br />suggested that it cou].d be made an outl.ot and this would offer <br />~rotecti.on to the people to the south. <br />tsir. Lee pointed out that a peti.tion has been f;.led with 12 people <br />against the development and 67 in favor of it. Mr. ilanson asiced <br />the attorney about the petitione The Attorney repli.ed thaC the <br />petiti.on i.s not legally compelling £or. conclusi.on of the rezoning. <br />Thtis type of petiti.on di.f:fer.s from a publi.c improvement peti.ti.on. <br />P1r. Lee stated ChaT, he ~aas just poinCing ouC ChaC ther.e are a lot <br />of people i.n f.avor of: the rezoning. <br />Mrs. Sca12e questioned declaring the buffer zone an outlot would <br />protect the F3urlce Lane residents. 'Lhe Ylam~er srated that the status <br />of an outlot can be changed, but it would requi.re the hearing process. <br />An outiot as it stands cannot be issued a bui.lding permit. <br />Mrs. Scalze stated thz~t she f.elt that Mr. Lee could have done a better <br />job i.n putting thi.s proposal. together. Scal.ze stated that the City <br />has triecl to caorlc wi.th Mr. Lee. <br />Mr. Lee stated Chat if he proposed a str.i.p oE residential property <br />be developed on the south of the property in question, these property <br />owners woul.d be f:aced with Chei.r proper.ty abutting, industrial property <br />a1so. htrs. Scalze repli_ed but aC ~.P.25C these peopl.e would have knoom <br />about it when buyi.ng t}tei.r proper[i.es. <br />Mr. Lee statecl that if he ].i.ved on ]3urlce Lane he c.~ould Ue more concerned <br />about the current indusCrial property in the area than hi.s property. <br />Mr. L'ahey commented that clie L~e pr.oposal is the same one that was <br />before the City si.x months ago except wa.th the additi.on of a buf.F.er. <br />zone. <br />Mrs. locli statec! Chat if the property across the sCreet Erom her had <br />remained residential, she woulci have been ~&~inst the Lee proposal. <br />~1rs. 7,och stated that as i.t sits, her property is not sal.eable for <br />residential. I.ots. P4rs. 'l.och stated that at [he ti.me the property <br />across from her was proposed f.or i.ndustrial she spol<e wi.th the owner <br />of. the 13urlce Lane property and he was aware that the area may go <br />commcrcial.. <br />Page -5- <br />