Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br /> <br /> requirements to show consistency with the PUD. Should there in the <br /> future be a two party agreement between Mr. Joel and Ms. Soreneon, <br /> then that could be accommodated by a minor modification to the PUD. <br /> He concluded that the City should not be involved and the existing <br /> recommendation from the Planning Commission settles the PUDas far <br /> as A & M Homes is concerned. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer agreed with Mr. Butler's comments. He explained <br /> that each person has a need for water and A & M Homes is in the <br /> middle being pressured by both sides. He agreed that the City <br /> should not be involved in the water rights dispute of these two <br /> parties. It seemed that the conditions on the PUD are being met <br /> under the existing agreement or should be met. If the conditions <br /> are not met then Ms. Soreneon has the right to ask City to be <br /> involved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed with Mayor Mercer, but stated that his <br /> intention would be to recognize the fact that if there is an <br /> agreement between Ms. Sorenson and Mr. Joel, then Council would <br /> consider a minor modification. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that if Council supported staff's <br /> recommendation, A & M Homes would not allow the lot line and so the <br /> PUDwould be moot until such time as an agreement is signed. Once <br /> the agreement is signed, A & M Homes would ask the City for a minor <br /> modification to the. PUD. This forces all of the parties to come <br /> together without having to take sides and it would also allow A & <br /> M Homes to record the lot line adjustment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked why staff listed a three-party agreement as <br /> an option. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated that there was some question as to what the <br /> City Council would support. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver, and seconded by Ms. Scribner, to <br /> adopt Option 3 as set forth in the staff report, directing Dr. Joel <br /> to apply and staff to process a minor modification coupled with a <br /> three-party agreement (Joel-Sorenson-City) concerning the manner by <br /> which the diversion will take place; said agreement to be designed <br /> to clearly delineate each party's rights and obligations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet stated that he would agree to take the City out of <br /> the agreement but the City should take an interest in what the <br /> agreement says. He was concerned with the enforcement provisions <br /> of the agreement and what the City is willing to do in the way of <br /> correcting it. Mr. Tarvet withdrew his motion. <br /> <br /> 9/1/92 10 <br /> <br /> <br />