02-27-85 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~t~u•rrs city counci.l. Feb. 27, 19£35 tlowe A1rs. Sc~l.ze staCed that she was not com£ortubl.c wit:h tl~e ??UD secti.on Rezoning & of. the ordi_nance. Scal.ze stated that she fElt if a PUD ~.vas granted Subd~i_vision in this case, ~i.t would put the CiCy in troubl~ wl~ien a PUD r.equest is (ConC.) made £or P-1. Mrs. Nardi.ni stated that she fel.t the Howe request w~s too much develaprnenC on one loC. i1r. Pahcy quest:ioned how el,e L1~e Ci.ty ur..is goin, Co d<~tvelop Che l.ots on Park StreeC between Yarlc and Rice. Mrs. Scal.ze commenl:ed that they coul.d be developed commerci.all.y. Mr. Howe stated Chat he f:elt the property too expensi.ve to clevelop one 4-pl.ex on i.t. Mr. 1~owe aithdrew hi.s development r.equest at Chis point, P1r. ilo~ve ~l.so inFor.med Clle Counci.l ehat it i.s a plea>ure ~aoricin~; wi.th the City's Pl.nnner.. Howe staCed Lhat he felt his develo~- ment would be an asset to the neighborhood and he i.s sorry the Counci.l feels the way i.t does. Mc. T3lesener F>o.inted ouC that a PUD i.s allowable in an P.-]. area accord:i_ng to Yhe Ordinance. Deep Lot 't'he Planner sCated thaf~. as he underst.anc1, it the Council's feeli.np Devel.opment i.s thaC access for any t:ype oE development must be di.rectly to a publi.c street. Agenda Itern No. 9 Mrs. Nardini. aslced uncler what eonditi.ons would a PUD be used :Ln an R-]. area. 'L'he Planner replied that there may be a development: that: due Co Copography :i.t would Ue Uenefici.zl to have one 1oC con,i.st~i.ng of 9,500 square [eet and another consi.stin~ of: 10,500 square Leet. The Ptanxier sCated that most ci.ti.es wi.17. go al.on~; cvith someChi.ri;; li.lce this. Or a PIJll may be used to ~erserve a clra~inag~ area. The Planner stated thaC he just wanted to cl.arify the Ci.ty's pol.i.cy as he is confron[ecl with rhis question frequently. C4r. Pahey commented that he can ses merLt Lo both si.des of the argument and also problems i.f the Ci.ty al.l.oas tt~i.s onp1~~-f.oot-~ot:~. 4 correction lots less then 125 Pt. Res. 85-3-101 The ,Planner stated tF~at tk~e firsC thing th~t i.s consi.dered is if a street can be constructed. Mr. Fahey askeci i.E the Council would object. to a 4-Pl.ex on an exi.stin~ 1.ot oL record CFiat was too narrow. Mrs. Scalze pointed out thaC in the case of. P1r. }lowe, the loC was an e;cisti.ng commerci.al lot oP record. The Planner aslced if the City's pol.i.cy is not more than one pr.~i.nc5.~1e hui.ldi.ng on a].ot, wktaC about the case of: a mi_ni.-storage. iJsual.ly, there are several huildinas i.nvolved i.n a mi.ni-,tor.a~e. Pa~;e -J.4-