Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 22, 1990 <br />Blesener pointed out that three of the property owners <br />could not develop the back of their lots if they wanted <br />to. <br />Costa stated that he could come back with Plan B, <br />however, felt Plan A was the most feasible for the <br />area. <br />Fahey stated that the Council can only accommodate the <br />present property owners and pointed out that they know <br />the ramifications of Plan B. <br />A member of the audience stated that he owns a lot on <br />DeSoto, pointing out that under Plan B he would have <br />one lot, while there is the possibility for two lots <br />under Plan A. <br />Saalze pointed out that if the southern lots wanted to <br />develop in the future, they could extend a cul-de-sac <br />from LaBore Road. <br />Michaud pointed out that there was discussion at the <br />Planning Commission meeting about the possibility of <br />narrowing Noel Drive as it intersects with Allen and <br />moving the road mat to the west within the right-of-way <br />to keep it further from the Plessel house. <br />Blesener agreed that these were possibilities, however, <br />were premature until surveying is completed. Blesener <br />also pointed out that Mrs. Plessel is not objecting to <br />the road improvement. <br />DeBace asked if the Council was in agreement with the <br />recommendations of the City Engineer and City <br />Administrator regarding assessments. <br />Fahey stated that it was his opinion that these <br />recommendations were acceptable. <br />Hartman expressed concern that should DeSoto be <br />improved, Slumberland would have access to that street. <br />Scalze replied that the street would be residential and <br />Slumberland would not be permitted access. <br />There was no one else from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Blesener, seconded by LaValle, the <br />public hearing was closed. <br />Page 13 <br />