Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swift thought it was the Mayor's desire to have the path constructed in <br />conjunction with the first building within the PUD and the final design and configuration <br />of the path will be shown in conjunction with the design review for the first house. That <br />would put off the final design and location of the path until there is an actual house plan. <br />It would be good if it was in conjunction with Lot 4. If, however, the first house was on <br />the PUD-A lot, it doesn't make as much sense. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Mr. Tarver, to require the design and <br />construction of the pedestrian connector to be done in conjunction with the building <br />permits and design for the first property to be developed on the Bozorgzad property <br />and that the actual location and design of the pedestrian walkway be determined at <br />that time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bach indicated he was given assurance by the City that this would not have to <br />happen until his property was developed. He has rural property and the Specific Plan <br />clearly slates that when an urban issue conflicts with an agricultural issue, the agricultural <br />issue will prevail and be protected. Now Council is proposing to allow 600 feet of access <br />of city kids to his horses. He did not understand how this could happen. He would have <br />spent time rallying support if he had thought this would happen. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver said many times there have been comments that staff has made <br />assurances. But nothing is decided until there is a public hearing and Council takes an <br />action. He did not think staff would presume to know what a Council or Planning <br />Commission decision would be before it was made at a public hearing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bach did not object to the easement, but at the appropriate time. When the <br />pathway issue first came up, there was to be a street. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver said the path has to be included in the Bozorgzad PUD if there is no <br />other way to solve the situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bach said there is a way when the properties are developed the area is no <br />longer agricultural. He has been there twenty years and this will destroy his lifestyle. <br /> <br />Mr. Tarver wanted the pathway constructed now. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the other options require moving the path to the other side of the <br />Bozorgzad property. Staff has reviewed various other locations and none of them are <br />very practical. It makes the most sense to have the path on the west side of the property. <br />With the Bach property's likely development pattern being to have access taken off the <br />future extension of the private street running up the east boundary of the Bach property <br />rather than the west side. That would minimize the length of the pedestrian connection <br />and utilize the ultimate streets in the area, which is why staff recommended deferring <br />construction until the Bach property is developed. If Council wants the path installed <br />now, the only practical option is to still have it on the west side of the Bozorgzad <br />property between the Bach and Bozorgzad property and to direct staff to try and work out <br /> <br />Excerpt from the City Council Meeting Minutes of 9/20/99 8 <br />Page 8 <br /> <br /> <br />