City Council Minutes 1993 01 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Leach: Hedding: Sisk: Leach: Sisk: were questioned rigorously about that and that you have backed off by one unit in your development, but in reality there will be "cash in lieu of" in this development? Yes. I think that's what the staff preferred. Outlot 1 is a little open space area. From our standpoint, it could be public or private, but it's being used as a detention area. I also think that because it's such a small area, from a maintenance standpoint, your Parks Department would probably not appreciate it, if we gave it to them. I think it's easier for everybody, if these homeowners maintain it, but it functions the same way and for all practical purposes like a public area. In this case, I can go along with "cash in lieu of" and I really have to commend you on your plan. It is a lot better than some of the other plans, where they access off of Pine. This is a nice development. Mr. Leach,~you've got the lots, as you know, well below the 12,000 and I would like an explanation, as to why is that justified. Why should we go along with that when in the same area, we've required lots to be 12,000 square feet? Outlot 1 is not part of that calculation and that is 20,000 square feet. If you did it in the traditional manner and didn't have the open space, the lots would be another 2,500 square feet bigger, then they would start getting closer to the 12,000 ft. The whole concept of a planned development is to be able to trade off. If you look at the overall density, we're a little over two acres and we've got eight houses, so that's more than 12,000 square foot per house. It's done in the spirit of a planned development with some transfer of space from the lots to the open space. Correct me if I'm wrong, when you went before the Planning Commission, 34