2015-03-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

[LR,J 721 Mr. Culver responded that this was more of a Community Development 722 Department or Planning Department discussion. While recognizing the point 723 about arbitrary rights-of-way widths and how they're applied or their results, Mr. 724 Culver advised that his question was whether in practice the right-of-way width of 725 those properties used as examples tonight prevented the City or County from 726 operating and maintaining the roadway. Mr. Culver noted that there may be cases 727 where a new utility or sidewalk was needed, and the right-of-way width may limit 728 those needs, or more width may be required to install something. 729 IAL 730 Member Seigler recognized that there were limits as to what a private property 731 owner could put inside that box, or limiting green space versus not allowing 732 construction. Mr. Seigler also recognized that the City may be wary of giving up 733 control of those areas; however, he reiterated that after 65 years, when nothing 734 was yet installed there, the City needed to determine what it preferred: to allow 735 more construction or to increase home sizes. 736 737 Member Cihacek concurred that this appeared to have more of a planning area of 738 emphasis. 739 740 Mr. Culver stated that, if came down to if Nweftoallow residents to add value 741 to their homes on small lots, and what should be considered a valid variance 742 request. For example, Mr. Culver noted a smaller lot could add a patio or 743 sunroom addition in the backyard, or other minor options. However, Mr. Culver 744 noted that from staff's perspective it was easier to have something in code 745 speaking to those issues versus allowing variance applications on a whim or at the 746 leading of changing City Councils or Planning Commissions in any given year. 747 Mr. Culver opined that the consequences of that may present other issues in other 748 part of the community. Mr. Culver concurred that this warranted additional 749 iscussion at the Planning Commission level; and noted there were various 750 considerations as to if and when a right-of-way or easement was vacated and 751 returned to a parcel. From his perspective, Mr. Culver advised that he couldn't 752 always recommend such a move as being in the best long-term interest of the 753 City. 754 755 Member Cihacek opined that it goes to the fact that some of those lines appear 756 arbitrary or conditions may have changed; and in some instances, it may require a 757 new determination under current development trends. Member Cihacek noted 758 that it would mean increased taxable property if the City gave some of that land 759 back. However, Member Cihacek opined that the PWEC needed advice from the 760 planning level to develop a policy in relationship to when rights-of-way remained 761 important. 762 763 Mr. Schwartz advised that staff could discuss this with the Community 764 Development Department and bring their viewpoint back to the PWETC for 765 additional discussion. Mr. Schwartz noted that rights-of-way were a huge Page 17 of 19