Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />June 22, 1988 <br />Schr~oeder• upgr•aded to meet Ci ty Code r~equi r•ements when the pr•oper•ty i s devel oped. <br />Pr•oper•ty <br />Division Blesener~ pointed out that at this time the per~manent location of the <br />(Cont.) road cannot be determined. <br />Schroeder agreed. <br />Blesener~ stated that he would not vote to r~equir~e a r•oad easement at <br />this time since the City is not sur•e wher•e the r•oad should be. <br />Fahey asked if the situation could be handled with a Developer•'s <br />Agr•eement similar• to what was done with Fr•ank Fr•attalone. <br />Scalze pointed out that the r•oad easement could be dedicated at this <br />time and if ther•e was the need to r~elocate it in the futur~e, it could <br />be vacated and r•ededicated then. <br />Blesener• felt this was unnecessary expense. <br />Fahey suggested that the road easement could be dedicated now encompassing <br />its pr•esent location and could be moved in the futur•e, then the City would <br />not have to r•equir•e the pr•oper•ty to be platted at this time. Fahey also <br />suggested that if it is determined in the future that platting is not <br />necessar•y, the Ci ty coul d wai ve that r~equi r•ement. <br />The City Planner• stated that he would r•ecommend that the pr•oper•ty be <br />platted. <br />Scalze agr•eed that the City should be consistent in r•equir•ing platting. <br />Collova asked if the City was accepting any liability by r•equir•ing a <br />r~oad easement over the existing dr~iveway at this time. <br />The City Engineer• replied that ther~e would be some liability to the City <br />and he would r•ecommend against dedication of the road easement until <br />such time as per•manent r~oad location is known. <br />The City Attor•ney agr~eed, unless the road was impr~oved to meet City Code <br />r•equirements. <br />The City Engineer• pointed out that with a Register~ed Land Sur•vey the <br />pr•oper~ty owner may have to go thr•ough all the for•malities of platting <br />the proper•ty, and the County Registr•ar~'s office may r•equir•e the pr~oper•ty <br />to be platted. <br />The City Planner• stated that if the r~oad location is unclear•, it should <br />not be dedicated. The Planner• also suggested that if ther~e ar•e no <br />development plans for Par•cel 1, it should be platted as an outlot. Then <br />when development plans ar•e pr•esented, the pr•oper~ty can be final platted <br />and the r~oad dedicated at that time. <br />Scalze asked if development could occur~ on an outlot. <br />Page -6- <br />