04-22-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F—»?S|'‘''V - •^‘ ■ *5^ »* lbi Mayor Grabek Drone Council Mombera City Adniniatrator Bernhardaon I Miehaol P. 6affront Aaat Planning a Zoning Administrator June 4t 1967 t #1119 w. Duncan MacMillan/Craigbank Aaaociatast 1700 Pox Street - Variance and Conditional Permit - Moaolution List of tobllkita Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C .♦ Reaolution as Revised per Council Discussions of 5/26/87 Council Action Notice of 6/3/87 Council Minutes of 5/11/87 Exhibit D “ Sketch of Rationale for 9.5 Acre Limitation Attached ia the revised reaolution per Council's coauients and discussion on Nay 26. Of the three changes noted (Exhibit B)t the applicants wish you to reconsider the request that the covenant allow no future subdiviaion of the 13.5 acre property. The applicants feel that as of your Nay 11 approval* such a requirement waa net discusaed specifically* and that they wish to be able to split off perhaps 1 or at most 2 additional 2*acre building sites for family members at aome future time. Xn reviewing the tape of the 5/11/87 meeting* staff notes that Nr. NacNillan stated he generally wishes to keep the property aa*ia* has no intent to change anything* and is willing to covenant samef his comments seesmd to relate to the residential* private character and nature of the property. Mayor Qrabek asked whether the covenant would allow future division of the property. Gaffron noted that thw covenant as proposed only keeps the tennis court on the sane parcel as the main house but does not address a division to create new building sites. Grabek in the aame context later in the diocuooien suggested that the potential aubdividability ahould be *cut thin** er as staff interprets this* be minimised. No where in the discussion was it actually stated that the 12.5 acre parcel "may never be divided** however* apparently in the minds of more than one Councilmamber* the vote of approval waa forthcoming only because of the large acreage of the property. applicant requests that you consider the 9.5 acre limit as recommended by staff rather than 13.5 acrea* which would keep the door open for 1 or 2 additional reoidencaa to be built in the northernmost portion of the property at some future time. An an option* applicant «»ould suggest that the resolution and covenant be worded so that although the covenant runs in perpetuity* future Counel la are given clear direction that if they find that a future proposed subdiviaion ia generally acceptable and meets the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other Codes* that the covenant eon be changed. t f .1