Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTF,S <br />CITY CO'UNCIG <br />JUN>!, II, 2003 <br />Krengel main pointed out that the owners to the west have indicated that <br />they are not interested in developing their property. <br />Fahey suggested that given the property owners to the west are not <br />interested and their lot is not large enough to subdivide on its own, the <br />City should proceed with Option 2. <br />The City Administrator noted that City stafT' and the Plamting Commission <br />have not reviewed Option 2. <br />Montour questioned whether the City should obtain formal documentation <br />fiiom the property owners on the west that they are not interested in <br />developing. Fahey suggested that City staff should send these property <br />owners a letter informing them of the consequences of platting as <br />proposed under Option 2. Fahey stated that he was uncomfortable <br />requiring the developer to set aside Outlot A for the benefit of an adjacent <br />property owner. <br />Krengel indicated that once they became aware of the City's interest in <br />controlling Outlot A, they were no longer interested in pursuing Option 1. <br />Krengel questioned the cost-ei~ectiveness of Option 1 even if the <br />developer controlled the outlot given the additional costs with a longer <br />cul-de-sac. <br />Fahey acknowledged that the City has discussed the issue of landlocl<ing <br />in the past, but pointed out that this discussion centered on larger tracts of <br />land versus the potential for an additional one lot. Again, he noted that the <br />property to the west is not large enough to subdivide on its own. <br />The City AdminisU'ator noted that the City's only interest in controlling <br />Outlot A would be to ensure an equitable solution for both the developer <br />and the property owners to the west. <br />Fahey argued that Option 1 requires development of a longer cul-de-sac at <br />more cost to the developer to provide access for property owners who <br />have indicated Chat they are not interested in developing. Again, the end <br />result would be only one more lot versus the development of larger lots <br />with less impact on Twin Lake. <br />1Crengel pointed out that the City Engineer has issues with the radius of <br />the road proposed in Option 1. Option 2 straightens the road, thus <br />eliminating the City Engineer's concerns. Krengel also pointed out the <br />issues that have surfaced with regard to an abandoned well on the property <br />and the fact Yhat the shorter cul-de-sac lessens the impact of those issues. <br />4 <br />