My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1987 05 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1987 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1987 05 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:57 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 2:47:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
5/5/1987
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1987 05 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Carnival asked for clarification regarding replat <br /> or amendments to approved subdivisions, <br /> specifically related to setting precedence each <br /> time changes in original agreements are allowed. <br /> Wanush stated that nothing is approved 'below a <br /> standard.' However, there are probably many ways <br /> to design a subdivision and still remain within <br /> design guidelines. In this case, the applicant <br /> most likely "had not done their homework` and <br /> discovered that their original plan would not . <br /> work. <br /> Szymanski asked if the City was only accommodating <br /> the fact that the applicant simply wanted to build <br /> a different size and/or type of house. If not, <br /> what in fact has changed since the time of the <br /> original subdivision approval. The City's main <br /> concern should be drainage, not size or style of <br /> houses. <br /> Wanush stated that the new plan in no way affected <br /> the drainage. Phare concurred and detailed the <br /> drainage plan for Council. <br /> Ssymanski still felt that if the old drainage plan <br /> worked, modifications to the housing issue was not <br /> the City's obligation to the applicant. <br /> Anderson addressed the issue stating that the <br /> setbacks request were not inconsistent with the <br /> neighborhood and the new plan was better than the <br /> old plan. Anderson stated, '...inexperience is <br /> - probably the reason for this (request) as there <br /> were defects in the original plan. This is an <br /> in fill piece of property and a bit difficult to <br /> work with and the drainage along the back is <br /> critical to the City in terms of drainage.' <br /> Anderson stated that it is his opinion that this <br /> request is in line. <br /> In response to Anderson's inquiry regarding fees, <br /> Wanush stated that they are charged a regular <br /> subdivision fee for this amendment. <br /> Mayor Pauson stated that he appreciates Council's <br /> concerns regarding these types of changes in a <br /> subdivision and PUD agreement and the fact that it <br /> takes staff, Commission and Council time to <br /> renegotiate these requests. A mutual cooperation <br /> should exist between a developer and the City and <br /> in this case, it has been a difficult area to work <br /> with. Mayor Fauson called for a motion. <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.