Laserfiche WebLink
Iv~ilvuTEs <br />CITY COiINCIL <br />JUNE 11, 2003 <br />Fahey reported that his recollection of the concept review was that the <br />City did not want to see any property landlocked and that the platting of <br />the property should address the issue of access. Fahey stated that it would <br />be poor planning to approve a development that resulted in the <br />landlocl<ing of property. <br />Krengel pointed out that the property to the west consists of approximately <br />28,000 square feet Given Shoreland Ordinance requirements, this <br />property is not subdividable since lot size minimums are 15,000 square <br />feet. <br />Krengel pointed out that the thought was in providing Outlot A was that <br />the outlot would remain under the ownership of the developer. At the time <br />the property owners to the west wanted to sell their property, the <br />developer would buy the house and the entire property at fair market <br />value, would subdivide a 15,000 square foot lot with the house on it, and <br />combine the remaining square footage at the back of the property <br />combining it with Outlot A for an additional lot Krengel pointed out thaC <br />under Option 1, the developer will have an additional $60,000 iu costs <br />with the longer cul-de-sac and would need to recover these costs as well as <br />wants to protect the character of the neighborhood that he is developing. <br />Fahey agreed that the City Plvmer and the Planning Commission should <br />review the new option that Mr. Krengel presented this evening. <br />Blesener questioned whether there was a need to provide the property to <br />the west with access to Outlot A. It was pointed out that the property to <br />the west is not large enough to be subdividable. The City Administrator <br />noted that adding Outlot A to the property to the west adds enough square <br />footage to make the lot subdividable, and that the developer proposed the <br />creation of Outlot A for that purpose. 'T'he Administrator indicated that it <br />is staff"s position that the equity of the situation should be addressed for <br />both parties to ensure that the developer recovers his costs and Chat the <br />property owner to the west pays a fair value for Outlot A. <br />Fahey suggested Chat given the property owner to the west does not have <br />adequate property to subdivide without Outlot A, perhaps the City should <br />not require development access and leave the issue between the two <br />parties. <br />The City Administrator again raised the issue of equity between the two <br />parties. Iahey felt the matter would be difT'erent if the property owners to <br />the west had adequate square footage. On its own, the property is not <br />subdividable. <br />3 <br />