10-28-98 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MiNUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 28, 1998 Farley stated that during past discussions of the road improvement, City staff assured the neighborhood that the development of the Kimmes property would be limited to a maximum of three lots. Fahey noted that the property owners have made that claim; however, City staff has noted that no such assurances were made. Fahey indicated that the upgrade of the street was not approved based on a maximum three-lot development of this property. That concept was discussed as part of the road improvement discussion. Fahey asked the City Attorney if the City had a legal basis to deny a five-lot development. Fahey noted that the five-lot development can meet planning requirements, and drainage issues may be able to be worked out. Farley a~ain commented on the assurances which were made that the property would be limited to a maximum of three lots. Fahey pointed out that he was at the road improvement hearings, and he remembers that the City Council was careful to not made this assurance. The City Administrator has indicated that staffdid not make these assurances as well. Morelan noted that the road improvement drawings which were reviewed did show three lots. However, that concept was someone's best guess for what could happen with the property. The reason that the Council wanted to review a concept development plan at that time, was as an aid in determining the minimum road width as for assessment purposes. Farley reported that Planning Commission discussion of the Kimmes development proposal was that the current nature of the road did not support the extra traf'Fic that five homes woutd ~;enerate. Farley noted that based on the three-lot concept, the City agreed that to the substandard width for the road. Now five lots are being proposed as well as a wider road in front of those homes. Farley asked if there has been any discussion or study of the effect that the extra traffic will have on this area. It was pointed out that the roads in this area handle two-way traff"ic. However, Fahey indicated that there was little reason that the traffic fi~om the new homes would use the looped street system. Farley disagreed indicated that he uses the looped road several times per day, and anticipated that the traffic from the new homes would as well. Fahey recapped the details of the improvement hearings where the previous owner of the Kimmes property proposed a three-Iot development concept. The Council had asked for this concept information as part of