Laserfiche WebLink
doing soninq on this .t acre paroel <br /> and then doing separate sontng on <br /> the property must door. <br /> Mayer: Yours talking about 2.67 acres out <br /> of a t of about to or so acres <br /> in timml area. What happens to <br /> Walim k street is going to be <br /> critical to that. The zoning in <br /> that area is mostly AA, etc. t for <br /> that piece. when we get into <br /> trouble is when we do little "piece <br /> meal" annexations, which don't sera <br /> to fit with the bigger picture. It <br /> you just want to build your house. I <br /> have no problem. <br /> Beaton: We have to submit our petition. At <br /> that tine we would also have our <br /> proposed POD for thrt 2.5 acre area. <br /> X think that's all that v* would <br /> plan. We're really just interested <br /> in building the house on oar 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 /> these is something comprehensive and <br /> not "pieta* meal ". <br /> Davidscn: John, was the plan to do the PUD <br /> with this piece of property and the <br /> adjoI :1.;7 piece of pro1.;rty all <br /> through the 5 Planning Commission <br /> meeting? cos* b+tore the Council as <br /> one (1) PUD? <br /> Franklin: I hadn't discussed the notion of a <br /> formal PUD submittal. But, I woe <br /> that because of the situation of <br /> that property with respect to Walnut <br /> street right -of -way and in <br /> cons ideration of Mr. Prouty's <br /> property to the north, the but way <br /> to resolve that first step in <br /> development in that area would be a <br /> joint sWaittal. It the Council is <br /> interftsted in a coabination sowing, <br /> annexation, development plan, and <br /> plat, we can. <br /> Davidson: would you almost have to do that to <br /> solve the Walnut street problem? <br /> 5- <br />