Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />API2IL 22, 1998 <br />Fahey pointed out that City Code requires lots to front on a street meeting <br />City standards. Fahey stated that at this point he is not persuaded to <br />approve a development for any more than the three lots that were <br />discussed at the time the streets were upgraded. This would eliminate the <br />cost for extending sewer and water. Fahey pointed out that the <br />neighborhood understood that the property would develop as three lots. <br />Fahey also pointed out how the propeity at Edgerton and County Road <br />B-2 developed. While the lots met minimum Code requirements, the <br />development did not 6t into the nei~hborhood given the topography of the <br />area. Fahey indicated that tive IoYs as proposed by Mr. Kimmes would not <br />be a good service to this nei~hborhood. <br />Morelan pointed out that tl~e origina] section of Gilanderi Lane does meet <br />minimum City standards. Wlien the Council looked at how this property <br />could be developed, three lots fit since they could be served via the section <br />of street that meets standards. Morelan agreed that additional lots served <br />by a substandard street should not be allowed. However, if the developer <br />is willin~ to reconstruct the remaining portion ofthe street so that it meets <br />City standards, Morelan indicated that he would be willing to consider <br />additional lots. Morelan pointed out that the ful( len~th of the street would <br />have to be upgraded, and may require construction of a cul-de-sac in order <br />to meet Code requirements. Morelan stated that he understands that the <br />neighbors do not want to see the road widened. Morelan also pointed out <br />that if the road is not upgraded, additional lots should not be allowed, <br />whether those are lots developed by Mr. Kimmes or lots developed via <br />subdivision of the neighbors' properties. Morelan again indicated that if <br />Mr. Kimmes is willing to upgrade the street to meet City standards, he <br />would be willing to look at a five-lot development. <br />Fahey agreed that a street meeting City minimum standards and a five-lot <br />development m1y merit additional discussion. Fahey pointed out the five- <br />acre parcel off Arcade Street and a previous proposal to subdivide this <br />parcel via a 20-foot driveway. Fahey stated that the City shouldn't be <br />increasing non-conforming situations. If Kimmes develops a full-blown <br />street, there would be less of an argument against the five-lot plat. Fahey <br />indicated that he is opposed to the plat if the street remains substandard. <br />I{immes pointed out that the previous City Engineer recommended <br />retaining the 18-foot street width. Kimmes stated that there will actually <br />be four new houses served via the 18-foot wide streek The fifth house <br />will be served off County Road B-2. Therefore, he is only adding one lot <br />to Gi(anderi Lane fi~om the three lots that were discussed at the time of the <br />street improvement two years ago. Kimmes indicated that he is not <br />refusing to build a standard street, but in terms of the cost and the fact that <br />the residents do not want the street widened, he has proposed retaining the <br />3 <br />