Laserfiche WebLink
Mayer: <br /> <br />doing zoning on this .6 acre parcel <br />and then doing separate zoning on <br />the property next door. <br /> <br />You're talking about 2.67 acres out <br />of a total of about 30 or so acres <br />in that area. What happens to <br />Walnut Street is going to be <br />critical to that. The zoning in <br />that area is mostly RR, except for <br />that piece. When we get into <br />trouble is when we do little "piece <br />meal" annexations, which don't seem <br />to fit with the bigger picture. If <br />you just want to build your house, I <br />have no problem. <br /> <br />Beaton: <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />We have to submit our petition. At <br />that time we would also have our <br />proposed PUD for that 2.6 acre area. <br />I think that's all that we would <br />plan. We're really just interested <br />in building the house on our lot. <br />It seemed the best way to do that <br />was to coordinate that with our <br />property owner to the north, so that <br />there is something comprehensive and <br />not "piece meal". <br /> <br />John, was the plan to do the PUD <br />with this piece of property and the <br />adjoining piece of property all <br />through the same Planning Commission <br />meeting? Come before the Council as <br />one (1) PUD? <br /> <br />Franklin: <br /> <br />I hadn't discussed the notion of a <br />formal PUD submittal. But, I agree <br />that because of the situation of <br />that property with respect to Walnut <br />Street right-of-way and in <br />consideration of Mr. Prouty's <br />property to the north, the best way <br />to resolve that first step in <br />development in that area would be a <br />joint submittal. If the Council is <br />interested in a combination zoning, <br />annexation, development plan, and <br />plat, we can. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />Would you almost have to do that to <br />solve the Walnut Street problem? <br /> <br /> <br />