Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 28, 1990 <br />be a cost to him for moving his utility barn. <br />Fahey pointed out that if Costa Lane goes west, the <br />Bruhn property would be landlocked. <br />Bruhn replied that this would be acceptable to him. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that if the City <br />decides that Costa Lane should go west, the City should <br />then proceed to obtain the existing 30-foot strip of <br />tax-forfeit property that would otherwise have been <br />used for Costa Lane road easement to the north. This <br />acquisition would be on a fee basis not a tax use <br />deed. This strip could then be sold to Mr. Wright, at <br />the cost the City had to acquire it for, so that the <br />Wright property could be divided in such a way that <br />lots would front on the western leg of Costa Lane. <br />Blesener pointed out that if Costa Lane turns west, the <br />home at 2972 DeSoto would be very close to the road and <br />a variance would be necessary. <br />The City Planner pointed out that the same problem <br />exists with the Plessel home if Costa Lane is run <br />north. <br />Fahey pointed out that if Costa Lane turns west, the <br />City could require the developer to put the road in so <br />that a non-conforming situation is not created. <br />Blesener stated that he thought the Plessel house would <br />have a larger setback from Costa Lane should it go <br />north. Blesener did not feel the road so close to the <br />house would be a good situation, and stated that he <br />supported the option of going west, requiring the <br />developer to keep the road the minimum distance from <br />the closest house on DeSoto. <br />Fahey asked Bruhn if he supported Costa Lane going <br />north if his property was not assessed for the <br />improvement. <br />Bruhn stated that he would then support Costa Lane <br />going north. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City could include in the <br />development agreement the stipulation that the <br />developer would pay the costs associated with the <br />improvement of Costa Lane with the restriction that the <br />Bruhn property would not be dividable. If in the <br />future the property is divided, the assessment would <br />have to be paid at that time. <br />Page 6 <br />