Laserfiche WebLink
MINU'CrS <br />City Counci.l, <br />Feb. ?_7, 1985 <br />Gordy ]iowe M,r. Gor.dy Plotae appeared before the Council requesti.ng approval. of <br />Rezoni.ng fi the subdi.v;ision and rezoning o,f propertq alon~; P1ric Street. Mr.. Howe <br />Subdi.v:i.sion repor.Ced that he i.s i.n a~;reement wi_th the recommendati.ons contai.ned in <br />Request the 7?].nnner.'s report. <br />A~enda YQr. Pahey pointecl ouC that Mr. Howe would ].il,ce the property divided <br />Item No. i3 i.nCO three parcels: one parcel. f:or each bui.ldin~; and the remainder <br />of the property wou7.d ba held in cornmon between the t~ao buildings. <br />`Trs. Scala.e suUmi.Cted a report to thc: Council.memhers whi.ch outlined <br />Council actions regardi.n; easement:s and accesses to properties since <br />1979. Mrs. Scalze statecl that she felt ttiat R-2 pro~e.rty shou7.d <br />not develop wi.t:h only an access to the property. <br />?4rs. Nard~ini. introd~iced the following resolution ~nd moved its aclo~tion: <br />RESQLUTION N0. 8.5-2-~30 - BRINGING TO 'f.'Ai~LL: <br />TFIP GOP.DX tIOWP RL'%ONING ADID SUT3DIVISION <br />RF.QUrST, ( clerk's exhibit 85-4-) <br />'f.he f.oregoi.ng resol.uti.on was dul.y seconded by Mr. Rlesener< <br />Ayes (5) Narcti.ni., T3lesener, Collova, Scalze, Pahey. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Re>olution decl.ared adopted. <br />Thi.s resol.ut:i.on appear.s i.n Resol.uti.on I~ook Dlo. 7.7_, Pa~;e 37. <br />A1rs. Scalre poi.nted out that the Counc~i.l. prev~i.ousl.y stsuck base lots <br />and unit l.ots fr.om t.he Ordi.nance. <br />The nlanner stated thaC Che matter can be handl.ed under a 1'UD and <br />poinCed out that I~leather Oalcs was handl.ed i.n th:[s fashion. ~Irs. <br />Scalzc stated Chat Heather Oaks ~vas R-3 property anci the City downzoned <br />i.t to R-7_. 'I'he City was happy to approve the Fle~t.her Oalcs developmetrt <br />and di.d not get sued for a do~on-valtain~; of: the pr.operty. Mrs. icalze <br />stated thaC the same Chi.ng caas done on the RuCh Street property i.n <br />that tt~e City docanzoned t}ti.s property to R-7. rather t:han net:ti.ng <br />addi.ti.onal apartment buildings. In these instances the City was <br />r.eso].vi.n~; a provlem ChaC i_t had. <br />Mrs. Nardini. poi.nted out Chat in Che Ruth Street development the Ci.ty <br />made a concessi.on as to Che amount of. front footage that the Ordinance <br />requised and she objected to thi.s at the ti.me. <br />?2r. llowe poi.nted out Ckiat he hact suff:i.ci.ent f.rontage i.n hi_s Ruth Street <br />development, it was Rocky Flai.te that did not, <br />A1r.. Pahey statecl that he felt Mr. ldowe has compli.ed ~vit:h the rec~uixement <br />of lot frontage f:or his buildings. Pahey pointed out that the bui.ldings <br />would oron tl~e frontage i.n common. <br />1'age -].J.- <br />