PL PACKET 03181984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- Councilman Marks that "maybe we should get started on this develop- ment" but said he has trouble disassociating this request from all the others which have never materialized. He also saw the opposition of an Apache barber to the proposal as being a point which should be remembered as well. However, he believed if the safety- factors built into the PUD or R-3 zoning requirements are maintained, the development of this lot might encourage development of the remaining parcel. He wanted the conditions set by the Planning Commission to be repeated in any Council approval. Councilman Ranallo wondered if the residents along Penrod realized that allowing a "B" use for this parcel might set a precendent for for the undeveloped property noting the opposition they had voiced when another "B" in the form of a municipal liquor store had been proposed for that site. The City Attorney addressed some of the Council's concerns by reminding them that "Mr. Morris is only a spokesman for Mr. Hedlund, since, technically, this is Mr. Hedlund's application and he has to agree to any action taken and can' t later say he didn't know .about the conditions you attach" . Mr. Soth recommended any motion- of approval should indicate the approval is for the Final Plan of the PUD and conditions set now are attached to that Final Plan. He told Mr. Haggerty the Final Plan is the document which must be recorded and "this is the Final Plan for only this particular • property" . He told Councilman Ranallo the Final Plan fixes the use C ---,of. the property and that use "can't be changed to commercial without rezoning" . He also advised that "staff cannot negotiate the PUD requirements regarding landscaping" as had been recommended by the Planning Commission. When asked to comment on the concerns raised by Councilman Ranallo regarding the City's legal position as to setting a precedent in the development of this property which might affect the development. of the lot to the north, Mr. Soth said "this proposal can be distinguished from the balance of the PUD since the subject lot has an existing structure as opposed to the undeveloped land, and, if you approve this proposal, you are confirming that the developer has two types of development possible for the property to the north" . He did not believe all building had to be done at one time, but could be staged but advised the Council they still had the .option of telling the developer "you can't make a decision on one parcel of the PUD without seeing a plan for the whole thing" . Mr. Haggerty agreed that Condition #1 for the Detailed Plan, as the Final Plan', would be satisfied with the recording of the Final Plan. He later signed the site drawings identifying them as the Final Plans. Mayor Haik said she intended to approve the proposal believing it would not be a deterring factor for the development .of the land to the north to-either a residential or commercial use under the PUD. She reminded those present that "the condition of the existing house • reflects the interests of the owner rather than the City". She did not find- the question of whether Mr,. :Morris_ is a reputable business- ` man or not should be the question involved* in making a decision, but. rather', what is the best use of the. 'land.