Laserfiche WebLink
`4INU'CTf> <br />Ci.t:y Counc~i_i <br />Jan. 2°~, 7985 <br />9ndFrson/Fiowe T'Ir. P'al~i~y stated that 1'ie Fc1C Gh~~~ PUD concegC was bc:i.ng used Coo <br />nronosal. loose].y in order to eil.l.ow people to dcvelop ~,ohatever Cl~zey want on <br />(Cont<) any piece of propcrty. <br />7'iie Planner reol.~i_ed that t},~e parcel. i.n q~.iesti.on is under common <br />oumershi.p and that is orhy a t'UD is applicabl.e. '!'he Pl.einner sLat:ed <br />that it:. m2y be ,tr.etcltt.ng Che .PU71 concept, but Ch~t i.s e~ judt;ement: <br />cali. <br />Mr. I'ahey aslced i.f ^[r.. i-lo~ae coot.i7.d be opposed to f7.:i.p-.[].opping Che. <br />development and dedicai:ing 30 f.eet: of road easemenC. to the City, <br />wh:iah ]-IOSae would havc t.o mci~i.ntain. T'I~~en i.f Chc oropcr4_~ to the <br />norCh develops, [he Ci.ty could ~et an additional. 20 Feet f'roi~n i:hat <br />propex~ty. <br />;•ir. HowF~ sCated Chat he caa, not opposed to ;;ranting l:he City an <br />easemenC, buC would ].~il<e his developrnent Co f.ace south. 1-towe pointeci <br />out; Chat: thc property to the north ~i_s a s1e~a and it 9.s cGue;ti_onable <br />t:hat. ttic px~oper.Cy ~oitl devE7.op a.n tP~e neo-xr futur.•e. <br />i~[rs. Scalze aslced why tL~ie buildinp;s caould be on two separas~e parcel.s. <br />Nfr. tlowe reJ~licd Chat th~is i.s a reqirirement of his mort~;age comp~ny. <br />'Phe 771.anner ~i~r.eed that thCs ~aas an FYA requi.rement.. <br />'1'k~e F'1.lnner sCated that t:he Ci.t:y has allo~ved pra.vate dri.ves i.n t:he <br />k~ast. <br />P~trs< Nardi.ni stated that i.E the Ci_ty requ:i.res the dri.veway on the <br />norch, the development Co the nortPi may not lencl itself to ;Qr. !~lo~ae's <br />deve7.ot~>ment. <br />~Iz. 11owe sCated thaC hc has a dr~iveway agreement crith his develo~~ment <br />on Riath St:reek. ancl can al.so do this on this develoCnncnt. <br />NCrs, Scailze pointed out t_,iaC the lots on R~it;i 0treet orere coiiiormi.ng <br />to Ctty Code. <br />tilr, I~ahey e~~as concerned that there may be othcrs who will caant: to <br />develop prop~rty ori C1ii.s 30 ,f.oot dri.vezvay easement. ?[r. Villea~ix <br />skated that~. he did not consi.der thc baclc of hi.s propertq zis develoDflbl.e, <br />c4r. Vi.lleaux stated that he felt N[r. }Iowe had a n;i_ce p1an. <br />i4rs. Nardii~~i aslced if. tt~is rczoni.ng coul.d be considered spot zoning. <br />M.r. '~~hey felt tt would be u t:ransitional zon<: that would buffEr the <br />resi.dent, i.n tlte area. <br />P?rs, Scal.ze stated that she httd a problem wi.th the propertq di.vi.s~i.on <br />and pointed out. that ~l.ong P:,cl~erton tl'iece are many 1on~ 1oCs that <br />peqple ~oi.11 a1,o w,~rit to divide. icalze staCed ChaC i.f: the t~ao <br />buildi.ngs e~er.e on one parcel., this ~aoulcl be more acceptabl.e Co her. <br />ifr, Fahcy stated Chat Che tioo biiiLcli.ng, on one narcel woiild be inore <br />object:ionabie to hi_m. <br />Page -3- <br />