09-22-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES C~iTY COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 Whitcomb did not believe the addition of a pond in this area would prevent flooding. Whitcomb suggested that if the City wants this lot, they should buy it at market value. Fahey stated that the City will not pay for something that it is entitled to take. Fahey asked the City Attorney if the City could require additional ponding area over what the Watershed requires. Fahey also asked if the additional ponding could serve an area larger than this particular development. The City Attorney stated that it was within the City's jurisdiction to impose requirements over those of the Watershed's. 'T'he Attorney felt that the City staff's recommendation was enforceable. Dave Snyder, attorney representing the developer, pointed out that this Preliminary Plat has been before the Planning Commission and City Council for many months. He noted that it was only this evening that they received the ponding drawing that was prepared by the City 'Engineer. Snyder felt that the drawing looks like an effort to remove one lot from the development and place ponding needed by other property onto theirs. Snyder pointed out that the proposed Gervais Bills plat takes care of its own water. Snyder felt that because the City is taking property from one property owner to resolve problems for other property owners, it should pay reasonable compensation for the lot it would be taking. Snyder pointed out that the ponding proposed by the developer ah'eady takes into account additional run-offfrom County Road I3-2 to help resolve the regional problem. However, the drawing prepared by the City Engineer goes beyond the scope of what was previously discussed and beyond the park land dedication requirement Snyder noted that the City Administrator had recommended a land dedication in lieu of cash in his July 21" letter. The drawing submitted now proposes both a land and a cash dedication. Fahey indicated that if the City takes a land dedication, it would be in lieu of cash. Fahey noted that the 1?ark Commission's reconunendation would be for land to be used as open space. Whitcomb felt that this was an issue that the developer should have had the opportunity to work through together with the City. Whitcomb noted that there is plenty of land in the plat, and au open space area could be created with a tot lot on it without the loss of a lot. Whitcomb also noted that they proposed an L-shaped pond in the area of proposed Lot 1 adjacent to the Engstrom property. The Watershed indicated acceptance of that pond. That proposal allows Lot 1 to remain as a buildable lot.