Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chairman McGuirk inquired of staff if the City could force the owners to participate in the <br />development of the access road. Mr. Swift stated a condition of the subdivision was to pay a <br />pro rata share of the driveway costs. What is not clear is whether they are required to allow <br />the common driveway to utilize part of their property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright stated his belief that the applicants were not asking for anything more <br />than additional time to be able to work with all of the parties involved in an effort to get a <br />road built, thereby allowing them to continue with the lot development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti commented on the complexity of the application. She asked if an <br />extension was granted and when the PUD was brought back before the Commission, could <br />the number of lots be changed. Mr. Swift stated that as long as there are no vesting <br />documents or maps, the pun can be changed through public hearing processes. Further, <br />this PUD does not have any vesting maps. <br /> <br />Mr. Shutts' second major concern of the staff report were the many pun modifications, <br />which have already been discussed thoroughly. In conclusion he again asked for the <br />expiration date of the pun be totally eliminated. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas closed by saying he knew of no developers for the southern properties, he must <br />work with Mr. Sanders and Mr. Ricci on the road development, and to require him to work <br />with unknown developers leaves him in a quandary. He would like approval to proceed in <br />development of the road that would allow access to future development to the south. <br /> <br />George Ricci, 5200 Foothill Road, stated he could not afford to pay $50,000 for his share of <br />the road development. He stated before he purchased his property, he and Mr. Thomas <br />agreed his share of the road would be $12,000. He would like to renegotiate and accept the <br />fifth lot if he's given access to the new road. <br /> <br />Mike Kliment, 5142 Foothill Road, expressed his disappointment that the Ku development <br />didn't go forward. He feels Mr. Ricci, Mr. Thomas and he need to get together and make <br />an agreement to put in the road. He stated the additional lots are in existence because he <br />gave an easement over his property for the private access road, and for that, he feels he <br />should have access to it. Otherwise, he feels the development plan should be allowed to <br />lapse because he and Mr. Ricci still have access from their private driveways. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br />There was much discussion and comments made by the Commissioners ranging from letting <br />the development plan lapse and start over, to granting a short extension period, to granting a <br />three year extension. The Commissioners all think the project is in disarray, with new <br />property owners that have had communication problems, and unfortunate circumstances <br />caused delays beyond the control of the owners. Staff advised the Commission they could <br />continue this application for one month to allow the property owners to come to some mutual <br />agreement on how to proceed. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />March 23, 1994 <br /> <br />- <br />