The Council asked further questions and made comments.
SKALA: Let me just go on the record here. I'm convinced that there are a number of
reasons why -- that there can be an exception to this replating process, two of
which are listed in those -- in that graphic that came up as a slide. The first, in terms
of the best interests of the public, and the third section had to do with detriment to
the public benefit. There are two additional factors. One is --
ministerial acts -- there are exceptions for public safety, and
I
think in terms of
see some of the
I
issues here in terms of traffic and concomitant issues with respect to police
protection and so on and so forth are one of those exceptions that the Council can
exercise its discretion on. And the other, frankly, is an interesting one --
I hadn't
really considered it but it's important -- and that is the overlay, and some of the
intent of some of the folks that put a lot of time in here. There are only a couple of
overlays in this town. One is
a rather relatively successful one in Benton Stephens,
and the other is in East Campus. And I understand that some of the legal folks here
will take exception to that, but nonetheless, I’ll hang my hat on the exception to
public safety and vote no to deny this replat.
PITZER: Yeah, so, you know,
I
voted against the first request, voted against the
is combining the three lots -- you
second request. Voted against the first one
-
know, it seemed out of scale with the neighborhood and those lot sizes. Voted
against the two -- you know, again, seeming like it was out of scale. You know, we
turn down the replat of the existing lot. So, there was existing 100 foot. There was
no change to the dimensions or anything, and we voted down the replat of that. So,
I, you know -- I'm a little bit concerned about what we're saying by voting this down
because there are three existing lots going to three lots. They will be legal lots. You
know, most of the testimony that we heard against this was related to the use of
the land. You know, the discussion about not being able to support apartment
complexes -- you know, the area already being heavily developed, the occupancy
and the density of the proposal --
than platting objections. So, you know,
neighborhood, and understand, you know, where everybody's coming from. Dr.
Mehr probably has more goodwill with me than anybody in the City, but I think that
we're going down dangerous path by not allowing something that is completely
I
mean those are all land use objections rather
I
hear and understand the concerns of the
I
I
a
consistent with all the other lots -- with most of the other lots on that same block
and in that neighborhood. And I'm just -- you know, I'm worried about where we're
going. It's seems fairly arbitrary. There could be
know -- for instance, in neighborhood that isn't as well organized, as well
mobilized to come out to city council meetings, and, you know, we may not even
think twice about that. So it does feel little bit arbitrary to deny this -- this
replating action. And, you know, would expect that we’ll probably wind up in
a
similar replat request, and you
a
a
I
court if we vote against it, you know, not unreasonably in my opinion either. So
again, you know, I hear the concerns, but I just feel like we're going from three lots
to three lots. It's entirely consistent with the other size lots in the -- on the block
and in the neighborhood. And, you know, it just feels like the -- we've got the UDC,
we’ve got the overlay district, you know, and the concerns and the objections are
with that, you know, rather than the lot size and the platting action.
THOMAS: Yeah,
owner can do with the property right now.
There was reference by number of speakers to
Could you, Tim, just describe that process? Would that require
I
have some questions for staff in just trying to understand what the
seem to have heard conflicting opinion.
planned unit development.
platting action first
I
a
a
a