CC MINUTES 10281980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- Councilman Marks that "maybe we should get started on this develop- ment" but , said he has trouble disassociatingthis. 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 approvalshould 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 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 recommendedby 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 bestuse of the land.