Laserfiche WebLink
Hoyt was not sure how this development fit Resolution No. 36. Their intent was to try and phase <br />according to the schedules that were a part of the agreements. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the conceptual Master Plan filed with the County Clerk in February 1986, the <br />map, was not signed by the then Mayor. He wondered when and by what action the City Council <br />approved that map. <br /> <br />Kottke stated that it is referenced as Exhibit C in the 1985 agreement. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that he did not know for sum if the map was ever specifically approved. Concerning <br />the width of the streets, he commented that in Ordinance 16.16.030 it states that requirements for <br />marginal access is 40' and 60' for a local street. <br /> <br />Hoyt stated that those are public right-of-way requirements, not private, as these are. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the city did not have right-of-way standards for private streets. <br /> <br />Davidson commented that also in 16.16.030 it requires that pedestrian ways be not less than 10' wide <br />and their pedestrian ways so not comply. <br /> <br />Hoyt stated that is specifically for public pedestrian paths. <br /> <br />Davidson wondered how the proposed use development would not be contrary to the general welfare <br />and economic prosperity to the immediate neighborhoods. Specifically, as to the air pollution and <br />congestion caused by the increased traffic generated by the development. He wondered if they met <br />the criteria of the Special Review Use, specifically, Al. <br /> <br />Hoyt stated that the whole Master Development Plan addresses that whole issue. It took a specified <br />number of units and distributed them across the plan in a way that was the best piece of planning at <br />the time that was consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this kind of <br />development, because it concentrates its uses, gives less actual impact on the neighborhood than with <br />each individual house. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />I believe that your position is that you don't have to <br />comply with the underlying zoning because of these <br />prior agreements. Is that correct? <br /> <br />Hoyt: That's correct. <br /> <br />Davidson wondered if any of the agreements went through the formal PUD process, as required by <br />the ordinance. <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br /> <br />