04-26-89 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f9INUTFS City Council Apr•il 26, 1989 location. The Planner r•eplied that it was not, and the dr•awinq as shown was a concept. Collova asked why the Planner was r•ecommending the concept with the qr~eater~ amount of lots. The City Planner pointed out that the 9 lot concept placed the r•oad dir~ectly abutting the City property, thus he felt the proposal was less desirable. Scalze stated that she preferred proposal #1 since front yards faced City proper•ty r•ather~ than having backyar~ds abutt the City proper•ty. Scalze felt that backyard stor•aqe was less desirable, and proposal #1 had a cleaner look. Fahey pointed out that under• pr~oposal #1, the homes would look directly onto the C,ity's water tower. Fahey stated that he had no pr•oblem with pr•oposal #2, however•, pr•efer~red 10 lots to 11 if it is decided that a street stub is necessar•y. Scalze pointed out that the concept should be sent to the Par~k Commission for their• review. Dale Rendberg, representinq P1r. Swanson, appeared before the Council. Rendberg felt that proposal #2 with 11 lots was more desirable. Rendberq anticipated moder•ately-pr•iced homes to be developed on the pr•operty. Rendber•g stated that he did not understand the need for a str•eet stub to the eastern proper•ty, pointing out that it is unknown when the Huot proper~ty might develop, or• how it will develop. Rendberq questioned who would be responsible for• the maintenance of the str•eet stub pr•oper~ty in the meantime. Fahey stated that the adjacent property owners would, most likely, maintaim this area which will pr•ovide them 50 additional feet of open area. Scalze pointed out that the 50 feet would be a str•eet easement, and would actually be a par•t of the adjacent properties until a road would be developed. The Planner~ agr~eed that the 50 feet would be dedicated as a r•ight-of-way, but not developed until the proper•ty to the east is developed. Rendberq asked what would happen if the pr•oper•ty to the east never developed. The Mayor replied that the City could then vacate the easement. The City Planner• pointed out that the Huot property is a long, nar•r~ow piece of pr•oper•ty similar to the Swanson pr•oper•ty. The Planner• stated that the only practical way to develop this property would be with a long cul-de-sac, and he felt it impor•tant to have some inter•nal circulation between the two cul-de-sacs. The Planner• pointed out the pr~oblems in the LaBor•e Road ar•ea with development of long, nar•r~ow str~ips of land and long cul-de-sacs. Fahey pointed out that as a r~esult of the way the LaBore Road ar•ea developed, one par•cel became landlocked. Paqe -4-