10/08/69 - Laserfiche WebLink

~. ~. developer should go back into the first phase to replace missing sidewalks. It was always his belief that the first phase, although experimental in concept, would remain permanently as constructed. Mr. Reid did not feel a poll answered any questions, that any change now - and he was speaking from the standpoint of the City as a whole - because of legal ramifications, would not benefit the City. Commissioner Gibbs stated that it was the obligation of the developer to have advised his prospective buyers that this situation was an experiment. Councilman Reid emphasized his feeling that the City, in encouraging variety in subdivision development, is responsible for pursuing these innovations and that the City is responsible for the planning of this City. Commissioner Antonini remarked that if the first phase should remain as is, "what do you do with people who bought there and want the sidewalk." Councilman Reid replied that the home buyer knew this situation existed: He re-emphasized that Council approved the concept because of its desire to encourage innovations in design and never did they interpret this to mean that the first phase could be altered. Mr. Gene Rega, Councilman, was present and gave his interpretation. He believed that the first phase was experimental in design but permanent in construction, but that at the completion of the first phase, the Commission would then determine if the balance of the development should remain with the elimination of sidewalks on one side of the street, or if sidewalks should be constructed for the remainder of the development. Commissioner Antonini then explained his version, which was that the Commission had the option to go into Unit #1 and have sidewalks replaced. Mr. John Price, 5094 Crestwood Court, an observer in the audience, spoke stating that he personally felt that sidewalks should be installed throughout the tract. Mr. Hirst made reference to the conditions of approval, including the condition stipulating that an 8 ft. strip be left clear for the possible installation of sidewalks, which showed the intent of Commission at time of original approval. However, he made the point that this particular situation concerned three parties, instead of the usual two, namely, the homeowner, the City and the developer. Chairman Garrigan was concerned that perhaps conditions of approval as stipulated do not get down to the level of the developer's construction people who in actuality carry out the conditions. Commissioner Antonini requested information as to what procedure the developer can follow now, does he have the right of appeal? The City Attorney replied that Mr. Frost could request an amendment to the PUD, more or leas in the form of an appeal. The distinction was brought out Monday night at the Council meeting that there was same question as to the Planning Commission's intent in imposing the condition. Chairman Garrigan stated that this condition (No. 17, Resolution No. 763) was a suggestion made by the developer that the Commission could approve the tentative map on an experimental basis and change it later if they felt it was warranted. However, after listening to the people in the audience who are residents of Valley Trails, the Commission should never have gotten themselves into this position. It was a "stupid" move to be caught in this position because of the problem it is causing the homeowners. The City Attorney then stated that the question is not whether or not the Planning Commission was right or wrong, but rather, what the intent was. It seemed clear to Mr. Hirst the intent of the Planning Commission from the conditions of approval attached to the tentative map, but that Council has apparently misconstrued this intent. -5-