pm_780802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

".5- property ONner to the north and that it appeared the owner was not interested in developing this parcel. Discussion Mr. Rukavina asked if the Co:rrmission were t.o require a dedication to tyrovide access to the northerly parcel and if in the future such access was not i.lee-'Cessary II could Mr. Connelly request the parcel be vacated a.'1d rettL.""11ed to him. Mr. Dahlgren stated that if the parcel to the north w-ere to be developed with access through the waterworks property, such a vacation would be appropriate and the property would revert to Mr. Connelly c Mr. John Johnson, 18?1 Alta Vi.sta. Drive~ asked what t.n:J6 of hones were proposed to be built on the lots and what would the effect of such developm:mt. be on the viaN from across the street. In addition he stated he was concerned as to whether water and sewer was avail- able to the property 0 Mr. McGuire stated that water and sewer were available andth,e.re should be no problem serving the lots, Mr. Connelly stated that he did not have plans prepared for hOTIES which would be cons- tructed on the proposed lots since he intended to sell the lots to individual o.vners, but that he did intend to construct high value hOIres in the a.:reac Mr. McGuire stated that after reviewing Mr. Connelly's proFQsed plan it was noted that he had not included the additional 20 feet of right~of-way which would be required on Alta Vista and that this dedication should be requested if the proposal is approved. Mr. Johnson asked what was the required setback in t.,e area, Mr. Dahlgren stated that the hOITes on the south side of the street were setback 40 feet and that the new he>nes would be required to be setback a minimum of 40 feet, Mr. Dahlgren indicated that garages would also be .re..Tuned to be setback a minimum 40 feet in order to conply with city ordinance which prohibits garages being placed in front of the hone. In order to vary frcm the setback. requirerrents, such variances would have to be approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of any building permit. Mr. Rebert Sil vagni, resident on Pineview Court Q stated that he represented three of the neighbors residing to the east of the developTIEnt, He indicated that the neighbors were concerned about possible errosion following the development, felt a need for a guarantee that the runoff would be oontrolledg and finally that consideration should be given to planning the full area including the parcel located to the north" Mr. Hugh Farrel stated that because of the filling problems and the uniqueness of the site, possibly the Comnission could consider three lots rather than four lots on the parcel since large portions of the lot because of the terrain are unbuildable. Mr. Bill Canpion, owner of the parcel to the north, indicated that he had talked to Mr. Connelly, Mro Dahlgren and others regarding the p::;ssibility of developnent of the parcel and that it was his opinion that with access to the land it would be developable in the future. He was not sure if acress would be possible fram the Water Departnent. Mr. V. Johnson asked if it would be possible to approve the proposal as a planned unit developnent?