Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Engineer Jankowski replied both of the lots would be eliminated with the plan <br />submitted. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec indicated he agrees with one access out onto Helium Street. He asked how <br />close the access is to the access across from Lord of Life Church. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied the distance is approximately 150 feet. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated he is aware that the church is trying to sell property; he would think <br />this development would speed up the sales ofthe other parcels. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon explained the Stritesky's have approached <br />both property ovvners several times and have been unable to work anything out. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen questioned if there is sufficient right-of-way where the trail is <br />located or if the trail segment could be lost when C.R. #5 is likely widened in the future. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained the requirement that developers put the trail on their <br />property is a fairly recent requirement; previously the City allowed trails to be placed on <br />right-of-way. When trails are connected to logical end points that go beyond the plat <br />there is only the option of putting it in the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stressed concern regarding the trail and the likelihood that <br />C.R. #5 will be widened in the future. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained if C.R. #5 is expanded to four lanes there would be <br />an urban section with curb and gutter, and the space that currently has the ditch would be <br />utilized. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he does not like the idea of more exits onto C.R. #5, and he <br />is surprised to think the County would even entertain that option. If the other property <br />owners in this area do not want to get together on this, these are the first people to the <br />table. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon advised the motion should include a <br />requirement for a temporary cul-de-sac with conveyance of an "access easement across <br />Lots 1 and 2. They milY want to be more specific and include a fourth condition that no <br />building permits can be pulled for Lots 1 and 2. There needs to be dialogue between staff <br />and the developer regarding whether these lots should be classified as outlots. The <br />County may consider them buildable lots and tax them versus making them outlots. He <br />noted the Meadows subdivision included restrictions within the agreement that Lots 1 and <br />2 by. the main entrance cannot be built on until the road is extended. He indicated his <br />preference would be to classify Lots 1 and 2 as outlots. <br /> <br />-175- <br />