My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-25-93 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
08-25-93 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:39:13 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:55:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 25, 1993 <br />The Administrator also indicated that the 1990 review <br />and approval of this plat required a development <br />agreement between the City and the developer. <br />Pedersen asked about a street stub to the property to <br />the east. <br />The City Planner indicated that the City determined in <br />1990 that the street stub was not practical due to the <br />topography of the area. <br />Morelan suggested that the City Engineer needed to <br />review more drainage information before final plat <br />approval can be granted. <br />The City Administrator reported that the City Engineer <br />is in discussions with the developer's engineer on <br />final sizing of drainage improvements. <br />Scalze pointed out that Park and Recreation <br />Commission's discussion about a walkway easement to the <br />west, possibly between Lots 4 and 5. <br />The Planner pointed out that the grades in that area <br />are steep. <br />Pedersen suggested that due to the steep grades it <br />might be preferable to not require the walkway easement <br />forcing residents to go around to Gervais Mill Park via <br />Little Canada Road. Pedersen pointed out that the City <br />did not require pathway easements of other developers <br />where he thought such an easement was much more <br />critical. <br />Morelan suggested that the Park and Recreation <br />Commission made their recommendation for the path <br />easement without knowing the exact location of Lots 4 <br />and 5, and it was suggested that the lots be staked out <br />so that the Park and Recreation Commission would have a <br />better understanding area and the topoqraphy. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that there will be a <br />development agreement that can address the walkway <br />issue. Once that agreement is drafted, it will be <br />presented to the Council for approval. <br />Hanson questioned the feasibility of the walkway due to <br />the topography of the area. <br />Scalze commented that the provision in the development <br />agreement can be worded so that the walkway would be <br />obtained if it were feasible to do so. <br />Page 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.