Laserfiche WebLink
465 <br /> <br /> Mr. Darryl Alexander of Alexander and Associates, 205 Main <br />Street, pointed out that Martin Avenue is the frontage of the <br />house and that even with the lot line adjustment, there would be <br />over 6,000 sq. ft. of improved rear yard. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes pointed out that splitting the lot would not be <br />in good faith keeping with a decision made earlier regarding the <br />development area. He added that he strongly supported the <br />Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the appeal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that a fair and logical resolution of the <br />situation would be to allow Mrs. Hunt to subdivide her property. <br />He added that he would support the appeal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that this PUD had more studies and <br />attention than any other PUD in the City, and it would be <br />difficult to find a good reason to allow a retroactive change to <br />that PUD at this time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver noted that the City staff got involved in the case <br />somehow, and fairness dictates that the appeal be approved. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired in what other way, besides putting in <br />street trees, an amenity could be defined, and if a donation to <br />the park at the end of Stoneridge Drive would qualify as an <br />amenity. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer replied that this site had no trees in contrast to <br />the neighboring areas, and putting street trees in would bring it <br />in conformance with the surrounding areas. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked Mr. Swift to clarify what the General Plan <br />states regarding off-setting amenities. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the General Plan states that in a <br />low density area like this, the allowable density is one unit per <br />acre; but with a PUD, densities greater than that can be allowed <br />if there are amenities provided that off-set the increased <br />density. <br /> <br /> Ms. Brandes asked the City Attorney his opinion about the <br />proposed amenities being used to meet the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that there are no guidelines other than what <br />Mr. Swift has already provided. The amenities being proposed <br />must be considered sufficient in relation to the increase in <br />density to be consistent with the General Plan. This requires a <br />judgmental call on the part of the Council. <br /> <br /> -11- <br /> 11-7-89 <br /> <br /> <br />