Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTrS <br />PLANNaNG COA4MISSI,ON <br />MAY 28, 2003 <br />recommendations #3. A. or #3. B. on page 3 of his report, or Outlot A <br />should be conveyed to the City as outlined under A. or II. on page 3 of his <br />report. <br />Roycraft asked if the owners of the lot to the west have been contacted <br />about participating in the development. I{rengel indicated that they were <br />contacted and indicated they were not interested in development at this <br />time, but may be in a few years. I{rengel indicated that they are <br />anticipating developing custom-built, upscale homes iu Hamel Estates, <br />and want to ensure that when the property to the west develops, that the <br />caliber of the home is comparable. <br />I{nudsen iudica~ted that Outlot A is a means of keeping the property to the <br />west from accessing the cal-de-sac. This outlot puts the developer in an <br />advantageous negotiating position. <br />I{rengel felt that the way the situation would play out is that they, as <br />developers of Hamel Estates, would have to purchase the entire property <br />to the west, including the house, and then subdivide the lot for <br />development at the end of the Hamel Estates cul-de-sac. He did not <br />anticipate the current property owner subdividing and developing. <br />The Planner again pointed out that reserve strips are not allowed under the <br />Subdivision Ordinance. The Planner indicated that in other cases such as <br />this that his office has been involved iq the reserve strip is transferred to <br />the City so that the City controls the future subdivision. In such situations <br />agreements can be put in place that provide for reimbursement of costs to <br />the developer for fair share of street and utility improvements. The <br />Planner also indicated that such an agreement could provide standards for <br />the quality of die house that could be developed. The Planner felt that <br />with the City involved, interests would be balanced. <br />Keis asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of Outlot A if <br />the City takes over the property. The Planner replied that the City would <br />be responsible. <br />Krengel pointed out that another option would be to shorten up the cul-de- <br />sac making the Hamel Estates lots larger and not providing for the <br />potential of future development to the west. The City Planner indicated <br />that the City would be reluctant to laudlock a piece of property and would <br />prefer to preserve the potential for future development of that parcel The <br />Planner noted that the issue for the City is that the ownership of Outlot A <br />by the developer could prevent the future development of the parcel to the <br />west The Planner stated that he would not recommend approval of a plat <br />that cuts of development potential for an area. <br />2- <br />