Minutes - Council - 02/28/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• City Planner Anderson noted that comment was in the initial staff review letter for the preliminary plat. He noted that utility and engineering staff reviewed that item and believe that the best approach would be to loop the service. He stated that there were discussions between staff and the developer between the preliminary plat and this time. He noted that staff still feels that it is important and the cost-share potential was brought forward as the aspect was not initially included in the applicant's proforma. City Engineer Westby estimated the cost to be between $65,000 and $105,000. Mayor Strommen stated that there are all kinds of examples where an applicant or developer fails to account for something in a proforma because they do not realize what the code says or thinks they would be able to achieve the result without the additional activity. She stated that she would not want to set precedent if the error was not the City's or a larger benefit to the City was not being provided. City Planner Anderson stated that the comment was part of the comments on the preliminary plat and therefore is not a surprise to the applicant. He stated that it is a long stretch of the line that is not serving any additional lots affiliated with the development but would serve the benefit of the proposed lots in the development. Mayor Strommen stated that perhaps the question is better posed to the applicant if the comment was made in the initial review letter. Heather Lordge, Capstone Homes, stated that Capstone was aware of the loop issue but worked diligently with their engineer and determined that water quality could be provided without the loop. She stated that her interpretation was that the City's concern was regarding the long-term and not the initial ability to provide water quality. She stated that Capstone understands that the loop is the expectation and appreciates the willingness of the City and staff to work with them. Mayor Strommen stated that she would be concerned that the City would fund this because of a miscommunication or expectation. She asked if perhaps the Public Works Committee should review that issue, as she would be hesitant to offer a cost-share. City Engineer Westby noted that the comment was in the initial review letter with staff and was discussed with the applicant. He noted that in the end, the road fell out of the mix and the watermain connection was left. He stated that the applicant stated that they would run calculations to ensure that stagnant water would not be an issue. He stated that as the discussion evolved there was a discussion regarding not only the initial concerns but long-term as well and were ongoing throughout the process. He noted that the benefits to the City and developer were discussed to determine if a compromise could be reached. Mayor Strommen asked if this could be isolated so that it does not open the door for all the future development requests. She stated that the developer simply not including the item in a proforma does not seem to be an appropriate justification. City Council/February 28, 2017 Page 5 of 10