|
Case ,%:
<br />
<br />Requ,,'sl For Final Pla! Approval Of Evergreen Lstates ^ddition: Cast.
<br />()f NIt. Lt.uis WilhdTni:
<br />
<br />.\k. Banv,'an stale-c ',ha', proposed addmo~: consists of sub~ividm~' one Z..~ acre lo; fron'~; z..:, a:rc
<br />pm'cd. Ti~e Park and Recreation Con:::','gsion recommended requirin~ ca'.;i,, in accordance witi'~ the
<br />terms of the proposed FXri: dedicauor, ordinance, to satisfx park oc. dicv, tion rcquircmc~:~:,. C~tx'
<br />Staff is recommcnfiir~,._, thal the propc, sed developmen,, ~gree~,~cnt t~e amended to. ~'.~..~u,,,.'-,~
<br />construction of a temporar)' cul-de-sac and paving the extension of ]73rd to aoccss the one lot.
<br />
<br />Louis Wilhelmi indicated that the costs are b~oming too expensive ~o develop one
<br />
<br />Motion by Councilmenft)er D:Luc; and seconded by Counciimemker Pe,~son to table action on thc
<br />request f6r final plat approv~ ofizx': '~--',,. ~e~n,' Estates t',~ allow Mr. Wilheimi sufficient time to revie,,
<br />his options with City Staff.
<br />
<br />?,,'lotion carried. Votin~ Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers DeLuca, Pearson, Peterson and
<br />Cich. Voting No: None.
<br />
<br />Case ,./: Request For Preliminary Plat Approval For Alicia Addition:
<br />
<br />Mr. Banv,'art stated that ti~e Plannin~ and 2x-ming Commission reviewed the proposed plat of Aiicia
<br />Addition and recommended that the streets be fully developed to the property boundaries to
<br />eliminate future confusion regarding the City's, policy to develop through streets between
<br />subdivisions. City Staff does not concur with the Plannin~ and * ' ~
<br /> ~omn~ Commission's
<br />recommendation. ~here ~e a number of other ~eas in the City that have provided easements for
<br />~n~ future exmnsion of s~eets but were not requked to full), develop those easements at Eno time of
<br />inti~ developm(mt: the developer of the abutting developmem would ~ responsible for ~e cos: of
<br />completion of ~ose s~eets to se~,e his development.
<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 abutting 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 blt: Opsahl to provide a letter of credit
<br />covering his portion of the cost to extend the streets at some time in the future.
<br />
<br />Mr. 0psaht stated that he opposes developing streets to se~,e abutting property that might not
<br />develop for a ','eD' long time, especially with the City proposing to go wi,,h 4 in 40 zoning. Mr.
<br />Opsahl also noted that providing easements for future extension of streets meets the provisions of
<br />the City's ordi.'nance. Mr. Opsahl indicated that road easements would be shown on the p).a~ and on
<br />the certificates of survey to eliminate confusion regarding the intention to extend streets at some
<br />point ~ the future.
<br />
<br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded bv Councilmember DeLuca to approve the
<br />prelimina~, plat for Alicia Addition contingent upon either 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 />m tine future.
<br />
<br />City Council/July 25, 1989
<br />Page 10 of 15
<br />
<br />
<br />
|