City Council Minutes 2000 02 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sisk stated that with regard to the open space, a 15% dedication would be 11.7 acres, which would leave 66 acres; with the reduction for roads, that would leave a balance of approximately 65 acres. He stated that the approximate 65 acres would permit 12 - 13 building sites as opposed to the proposed 16 building sites. He stated the R-RR zoning permits one house for every five acres, not one house for every four acres. Brown 'stated that he too was concerned about the road safety issues, and wanted to make sure the issue was satisfactorily addressed. Levihn also voiced his concern over the issue of road safety and the density contained in the proposal. Davidson voiced several of his concerns. He stated his concern with the number of concessions, and whether they comply with the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned Section B., of the Code "By right-of-way dedication, Owner will have fulfilled all financial and construction obligations for Dillon Road and 88th Street." With respect to the next two paragraphs of Section B., the 24" pavement/no walks/no curb," and the "single access point," Davidson asked why this wasn't accomplished through the PUD process. With regard to Section D., "No participation by the Owner in the Dillon Road or South 88th Street waterline will be required," Davidson stated that this was not the normal criteria. With regard to Section E. "Waste Water Permits," Davidson asked the City Attorney to review this matter to assure that the City does not have any liability With regard to Section F., not requiring phasing/building permits, Davidson stated that this is a violation of Resolution No. 36, and therefore cannot be amended. With regard to Section F., Open Space, Davidson stated that the language is not definitive. With regard to the Petition for Annexation, page 4, Item 7, the zoning classification proposed is PCZD-R, which did not appear to be correct. On Item 8, with regard to water and sewer lines, Davidson stated that the language seems to indicate that at some point the services would be provided by the City at its cost. He asked for clarification on these issues. He had a difficult time determining standard provisions, those dealing with the annexation agreement, and special provisions. Chuck Keim, responded to the concerns and comments of the Council. He stated that the concern for the correction of the curve will be addressed and that the applicant, Mr. Bowes, will dedicate what ever is required to improve the road. Mr. Keim responded to Mayer's concern relative to lot size versus overall density, and how many lots are allowed as compared to lot size. Mr. Keim stated that it was his understanding that the overall density of the project, generated by any given zoning district, in this case R-RR, provides for one unit per five acres. He asked if that was correct. Mayer stated that he was referring to Section 17.12.040, which specifies the minimum lot area. He felt that this was consistent with all the zoning requirements. It was his interpretation of the Code that it is required on each lot, after any dedication for public improvement and open space. He felt that this issue needed to be resolved. 17