Laserfiche WebLink
open space dedication, if it was a <br />free standing parcel. The balance <br />of the dedication falls on Mr. <br />Beaton's property. Their property <br />line does not fall directly at the <br />center line of the right-of-way. <br />The balance of the right-of-way <br />would be exacted off of the <br />property, if it were a street. <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />Scott Ross, if the .11 is already <br />annexed and it comes together with <br />this and it becomes a cumulative of <br />.77, then don't we have a 15% <br />dedication as part of it? <br /> <br />Ross: <br /> <br />As I read the Code, if the <br />properties don't subdivide it as an <br />independent parcel of .77 acres, the <br />cities land dedication requirements <br />would apply or cash-in-lieu. If <br />it's developed as part of a larger <br />proposal, then we're still going to <br />have essentially the same <br />dedication~ <br /> <br />Davidson wondered why the Planning Commission did not consider RR <br />zoning, which is to the south and west of this property. <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />My notes don't reflect any <br />discussion with regard to the more <br />restrictive zoning designation. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />If the entire unannexed area came <br />in, including this one small area, <br />could that entire area not be <br />logically developed as RR, besides <br />RE. In other words, RR would be a <br />designation that could be developed <br />on it, everything would fit, and <br />nothing would look out of place? <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />RR would certainly preserve the <br />character in terms of density. <br /> <br />Hornbostel wanted to see it as RR, with the open space dedication <br />rather than cash-in-lieu. <br /> <br />Mayer moved that Council adopt Resolution No. 34, Series 1993, <br />Beaton annexation. Seconded by Sisk. Roll call was taken. Motion <br />passed by a 5 - 1 vote with Hornbostel voting against and Howard <br />being absent. <br /> <br /> <br />