02-26-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ernia meeting )P the plashing commissiu: °Vnt'tet«''een'’“he^on provided “feline rearrangement oion i®^°^^^McDowell parcel and ^ thea\"te£rnvclvij.,--”e'nt has hean reac.eair?lefin^^ed • „ ,erve thesaia that the e*l^h^hih„\-“B«siae Kc,a Is ahsura. .es^ana the P>^?P°°ht Wear Sutaivislon.on.patea this with the eubaiwisio" innotea that this.? the cm -VpuS?" ”al°whlch"«ouia prohahlY he ver a£ taking over a puon't s6tt.ing* he has^ • ,•< very unique and "® " ^ to gi^ei,ev said that this i ^j^at it Access torsa»jf~si*.s:“s “r..:«*.. ■••*■ "“ "TrrU»“" •• ■"•" "■ '"■abusth asked Mr. m being proposed. ^ffer a "winr kas existing access^o£ Bavsiae. ,Peps in ^'e“oU"tte“roaS*' onto .Sr.-sSle^tU”^ saffron confirmea that., confitmea that. .,,„een the existing ana .. *. vhe distance between asked _ will be. ..iyside accesses wxx 11aSKea vrill be. ,vside accesses wx ^ i„ «i00'. McDowell ^ V, +• is approximately a-ii eliminate the,„l.d.-sao out coomission to vote on -“raVemraf^o^t-" ^ *> i iI MIHUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTINUEDThere were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the Hayssen/McDowe 11 lot line rearrangement as proposed. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed.It was moved by Kelley to deny access onto Bayside Road for the proposed 2-lot subdivision.Mr. Owens, expanded on the reason for the access proposal. He informed the Planning Commission that a motion to deny could have disastrous results for everybody involved, including the City. Mr. Owens said that he had talked with the County regarding this matter. Re said that if Tract A is split into 2 lots and if Mr. white prevails in litigation as to accessing those lots, then the Title Company will have to spend a lot of money to satisfy Mr. McDowell. Mr. Owens said that this access problem is due to an error made by the Title Company years ago. Mr. Owens said that the obvious access that Mr. McDowell will be entitled to is where his Tract A abuts Eayside Road. He said there is approximately 190' of property abutting Bayside. Mr. Owens indicated that Mr. White was not thrilled with the current proposal, but felt it was a compromise that would avoid the need to litigate the matter. Hanson said that he had reached the same conclusion that Kelley had. However, after listening to Mr. Owens, he was not sure. He asked Mr. .McDowell what exactly he wanted. Mr. McDowell said that basically he wanted what currently exists. He said that everyone using the existing road loves the way things are now. McDowell said that the only problem is that he doesn't have access to his property. He said that what he wants is access to his property without the need to put in a cul- de-sac and destroy what now exists for the other residents. Cohen questioned why Mr. White would not give McDowell access to his property, since the road is already being used by Alt and Hayssen? Mr. Owens replied that Mr. White does not want the traffic that the two additional lots will create on his property. Mr. Owens also said that everyone involved agrees that they do not want the road upgraded, which would have to occur if the McDowell lots are added. Mr. Owens said that the road is enclosed on both sides by mature trees which would have to be removed. Mr. Owens added that he did not think approval of this proposal would set any precedent and furthermore, the County has approved the access being proposed onto Bayside. Brown indicated that he is compelled by a couple of things. One concern is that the City does not have an easement under the existing driveway so the City cannot do what it did in the Wear 14