Laserfiche WebLink
pa-ecl. Thc Park a~d Recreation Com::::.~sion recommended rcquirin? cat.i,, ir, a~,:cordancc ',~-'il)'1 thtt <br />tenus of the proposed ?ark de&:atior: ordinance, to satisfy par\ s.vdic~:tion ,"ccluir:mcr:t!.. C~:v <br />Staff is recomme,'~ding ti;at ti~c pro. pc. set development ar_reemcnt r~c ~m~endec; to rc~uirc <br />construction of a tempora'q,, cut-Cie-sac and pax'inF_ the extension of i73rd m a::.cess ti~e one lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Louis Wilhelmi indicmcd thai 'J~e costs arc becomin,c try expensive to develop one iot. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmem[~r DeLuc, and seconded by Councilmember Pearson m table astion on the <br />reques~ for fin:z! plat approval of Evcr~een Estates ',,'~ allow/',,gr. 'Wilhelm/eof f ,,-:mm time to review <br />his options with City Staff. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers DcLuca, Pearson, Peterson and <br />Cich. VotinT. No: None. <br /> <br />Case #?: Reques! For Preliminary Piat Approval For Alicia Addition: <br /> <br />Mr. Banwart stated tha.: thc Piannin~ and 22onin7 Commission reviewed thc proposed pia~ of Aiicia <br />Addition and recommended thai thc streets be fulh' developed [o ti~c proper~y boundaries to <br />eliminate future confusion regarding: the Guy's policy to develop throuTh streets between <br />subdivisions. City Staff does not concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission's <br />recommendation. ;I'here are a number of other areas in the Cit,,' that have provicied easements for <br />the future extension of streets but ',,,'ere not required to full)' develop those easements at the time of <br />intial developm~mt: the developer of '3~e abutting development would ~ responsible for the cosl of <br />completion of those streets to ser','e his deveiopment. <br /> <br />Council concurred that construction of streets to property boundaries eliminates confusion when <br />temporary cul-de-sacs are removed and streets are. extended to abuttin~ developments. <br /> <br />Dave Putnam - consulting engineer for Alicia Addition - Stated that the developer, Mr. Opsahl, <br />strongly feels that the easements for future extension of streets do not merit paving at this time. <br />Mr. Putnam suggested that a remedy might be to require Mr. Opsahl to provide a letter of credit <br />coveting his portion of the cost to extend the sn'eets at some time in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Opsah! stated that he opposes developing streets to serve abutting property that might not <br />develop for a ','er',' tong time, especially with the City proposing to go with < in 40 zoning. Mr. <br />Opsahl also noted that providing easements for future extension of streets meets the provisions of <br />the City's ordinance, l~$r. Opsahl indicated that road easements would be shown on the plat and on <br />the ce,-xificates of survey to eliminate confusion regarding the intention to extend streets at some <br />point in the future. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember DeLuca to approve the <br />preiiminau, plat for Alicia Addition contingent upon elther the roads being full,., developed to the <br />property boundaries or the developer providing a letter of credit for the paving of road extensions <br />in the future. <br /> <br />City Council/July 25, 1989 <br />Page 10 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />