Laserfiche WebLink
comment. Knowing that the City Council is interested in approving developments that can <br />provide for orderly re-subdivision, the applicant has submitted a re-subdivision plan showing <br />how the property could be platted in the event City services are extended to the area. Brad Fritch <br />is agreeable to referencing the re-subdivision plan in the Development Agreement and possibly <br />providing language restricting principal dwellings and accessory structures from being <br />constructed in areas that may cause difficulty for future re-subdivision. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that in reviewing the sewer and water concept, it seemed to be a <br />good compromise because it identifies how future development could occur if urban services are <br />connected to the property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that he does not like the idea of going through Mr. Anderson's <br />property and he likes the concept of taking the road through the parkland. He also liked that they <br />were not going forward with the cluster development on this piece of property because he thinks <br />it is a real cost issue the developer would have to face. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired if they were talking about ghost platting or actual platting. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Ward explained that it would be a re-subdivision plan that would be <br />referenced in the development agreement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired if there will be separate lots of record. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald explained that the lots would not be recorded separately, but the re- <br />subdivision plan would identify which lots can and cannot be constructed on. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired if they were going to address the road connections. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained that the City had attempted to construct a Fire Station on <br />Central Park but the City could not do so because the land was dedicated for park. This situation <br />is different because the land was dedicated as part of the development of Autumn Heights and it <br />stated that it is to be used for park only. When the City receives parkland the City owns it in <br />trust. The City catmot vacate the park without reverting the title back to the developer. The <br />second option would be to construct the road without vacating the park. Everyone in the plat of <br />Autumn Heights should be notified of the road and allow them to give input for using the park <br />for purposes other than a park. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak recommended that a trail be constructed to accommodate emergency <br />vehicles or a parking lot be constructed with accesses to either development. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that a parking lot or a trail would be consistent with the park use. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that the moment a trail is constructed it would be used by regular traffic. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman replied that staff would recommend against a trail connection. <br /> <br />City Council/April 22, 2003 <br /> Page 15 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />