CC MIIN 1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2'7}0 , In response to request for comment concerning the fact that the Ctty cannot afford to buy the property in question for a park site at the court determined fair market value and that the property owner is entitled to make some use of it, Mr Cawley stated his concern is primarily the increased traffic from the proposed ten units and the possible difficulty in bringing in fire equipment should it be necessary to do so. It was explained that the road- ' ways in the proposed development meet Fire Department requirements- S encer K Purvis, 816 Bain Place, asked whether Council members � have vis ted the site of the proposed development, and was advised that all have done so one or more times Mr Purvis suggested that the proposed ten homes would increase traffic beyond the capacity of Bain Place and recommended access to the proposed development be made through Glenwood �Beverl �Aiello, 790 Bain Place, suggested that if access to the proposed development were on Canyon Road with a stop sign at the intersection, it would serve to slow traffic in that area In resoonse to question City Attorney Schricker advised that as a policy matter the Council can compel a public street to be con- structed from Canyon Road to Glenwood, although there is an ease- ment on Glenwood for nearby residents which has not been available to the developer. MOTION: Councilman Barrett moved, seconded by Counctlman Norris, to close the public hearing The motion carried unanimously by voice vote The public hearing was closed at 8�37 p m � MOTION Councilman Henderson moved, seconded by Councilman Rhodes, to reverse the dectsion of the Planning Corrmnssion and deny the application of Stekoll Development Corporation for a Planned Development Permit for 714 Canyon Road. Councilman Henderson stated for the record that her concerns are that the private street is too narrow, the unusual length of the cul de sac, the substandard turning radius, and that all ten lots are less than minimum lot size required in the City. Final discussion concerned the desire to obtain developments in the City which meet or exceed minimum requirements, whether the subject development would be of benefit to the City, whether the sub�ect development is consistent with the purpose of the planned development permit, the rights of the developer to make reasonable use of his property, and the Council's preference for a standard subdivision making use of variance procedure, if necessary The motion carried unanimously by voice vote • (MINUTE ORDER N0. 76-30) (The Council recessed from 8.47 to 8.55 p m Vice Mayor Williams and Councilman Leipzig returned to their Council chairs ) ' -4- Reg Mtg 2/2/76