Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 22, 1998 <br />Pam Bennett, 795 E. Vil<ing Drive, reported that two years ago there was <br />agreement between the City, Mr. Smith, and the other property owners in <br />Yhe area relative to the type of improvements which would be done and the <br />resulting assessments to the propeity owners. At that time, the ambiance <br />of the neighborhood was an issue and the resultin~; improvements were an <br />effort to retain that ambiance. Bennett pointed out that the properties in <br />this neighborhood are 1 to 2 acre lots. While Bennett indicated she was <br />sure Mr. Kimmes would construct quality homes, the development as <br />proposed changes the neighborhood and what was agreed to two years <br />ago. Bennett also pointed out that a decision on this plat has been <br />dragging out for many months, and asked that a decision be made. <br />Bennett also pointed out that had the nei~;hborhood known the Smith <br />property might develop as five lots, the neighborhood would never have <br />agreed to the improvements and assessments that were done two years <br />ago. Bennett felt a five-lot development was not warranted. Existing <br />homes in the Gilandari nei~hborhood range in value fi•om $150,000 and <br />up, and this is not an area where five $300,000 homes should be <br />constructed. Bennett indicated that the only benefit in this matter is the <br />financial benefit that Mr. Kimmes will realize. Bennett indicated that the <br />neighbors are not opposed to a three-lot deve(opment. <br />Winifred Farley, 777 E. Viking Drive, pointed out the ]ooped street system <br />through the neighborhood, and was concerned for tlie addiYional traffic <br />that may result around the loop because of five additional homes. Farley <br />pointed out that the looped portion of the street cannot be widened given <br />that the topography drops off on one side and there is a Williams pipeline <br />on the other. <br />Pedersen stated that he understands the drainage issue as well as the <br />ambiance issue. However, he did not feel the City ever made a <br />commitment to limit this property to a three-lot development. Pedersen <br />asked on what basis the City could deny the five-lot proposal made by Mr. <br />Kimmes. Pedersen questioned whether the street width was a le~itimate <br />reason for denial. Pedersen pointed out that the substandard street was <br />agreed to by the City a couple of years ago as a concession to the <br />neighborhood. Pedersen was not sure the City could say that the five lots <br />would not work because of the 18-foot road width. Pedersen pointed out <br />that this is not a highly traveled road. <br />Fahey suggested that if the City abandons the normal standards far this <br />plat, it can expect to be faced with simi(ar requesTS in the future. At the <br />time Gilanderi Lane w1s reconstructed, it made sense not to reconstruct to <br />City standards given that this was ai~ established neighborhood with <br />established setbacks. The City improved upon the situation as it <br />