Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Culver responded that this was more of a Community Development <br /> Department or Planning Department discussion. While recognizing the point <br /> about arbitrary rights-of-way widths and how they're applied or their results, Mr. <br /> Culver advised that his question was whether in practice the right-of-way width of <br /> those properties used as examples tonight prevented the City or County from <br /> operating and maintaining the roadway. Mr. Culver noted that there may be cases <br /> where a new utility or sidewalk was needed, and the right-of-way width may limit <br /> those needs, or more width may be required to install something. <br /> Member Seigler recognized that there were limits as to what a private property <br /> owner could put inside that box, or limiting green space versus not allowing <br /> construction. Mr. Seigler also recognized that the City may be wary of giving up <br /> control of those areas; however, he reiterated that after 65 years, when nothing <br /> was yet installed there, the City needed to determine what it preferred: to allow <br /> more construction or to increase home sizes. <br /> Member Cihacek concurred that this appeared to have more of a planning area of <br /> emphasis. <br /> Mr. Culver stated that, if came down to if we want to allow residents to add value <br /> to their homes on small lots, and what should be considered a valid variance <br /> request. For example, Mr. Culver noted a smaller lot could add a patio or <br /> sunroom addition in the backyard, or other minor options. However, Mr. Culver <br /> noted that from staff's perspective it was easier to have something in code <br /> speaking to those issues versus allowing variance applications on a whim or at the <br /> leading of changing City Councils or Planning Commissions in any given year. <br /> Mr. Culver opined that the consequences of that may present other issues in other <br /> part of the community. Mr. Culver concurred that this warranted additional <br /> discussion at the Planning Commission level; and noted there were various <br /> considerations as to if and when a right-of-way or easement was vacated and <br /> returned to a parcel. From his perspective, Mr. Culver advised that he couldn't <br /> always recommend such a move as being in the best long-term interest of the <br /> City. <br /> Member Cihacek opined that it goes to the fact that some of those lines appear <br /> arbitrary or conditions may have changed; and in some instances, it may require a <br /> new determination under current development trends. Member Cihacek noted <br /> that it would mean increased taxable property if the City gave some of that land <br /> back. However, Member Cihacek opined that the PWEC needed advice from the <br /> planning level to develop a policy in relationship to when rights-of-way remained <br /> important. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that staff could discuss this with the Community <br /> Development Department and bring their viewpoint back to the PWETC for <br /> additional discussion. Mr. Schwartz noted that rights-of-way were a huge <br /> Page 17 of 19 <br />