10-28-98 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MiNUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 28, 1998 their consideration in determining the road width for Gilanderi Lane and Viking Drive. Fahey commented that the neighborhood is now saying that because the road is substandard, no more than a three-lot development should be allowed. Fahey pointed out that the City never gave any assurances that the devetopment of this property would be limited to three lots. Farley stated that it is his thought that based on the discussions that occurred as part of the improvement and assessment hearings as well as the investments made by the previous owner of the Kimmes property in terms of assessments, there were encumbrances placed on the property that Mr. Kimmes purchased. Farley pointed out that the previous owner did not want to invest any more in the road improvement than a maximum equivalent of a three-lot development. Based on that position, the property was assessed for three lots, and three sewer and water stubs were installed. Farley indicated that if the previous owner had said the property would have developed with five lots, the City would have assessed him accordingly. It is also likely that the 10-foot wide loop would not have been adequate and a wider street would have been required. Morelan pointed out that had five lots been proposed by the previous owner at the time of the improvement hearin~, it is likely that the City would have required a cul-de-sac at the end of the street and would have eliminated the looped street. Fahey asked if the objection to the five-lot proposal is based on the number of lots or the increased traffic. Farley replied that his recollection is both. Farley pointed out that from an aesthetic standpoint, the lots in the area are one-acre lots. The lot size proposed by Kimmes would be less which would have a negative impact on the area from an aesthetic standpoint. There is also concern about the amount of traffic that five homes would generate. Farley also pointed out that at an earlier meeting Brian Ducharme, the property owner to the west, indicated he had no interest in granting a drainage easement on his property for the Kimmes development. Farley summarized that concerns are with lot size, aesthetics, traffic patterns and volumes, and drainage. Fahey pointed out the Kroiss development at the corner of Edgerton Street and County Road B-2 indicating that many of the propeity owners in the area had been opposed to that development. Fahey felt that the Council made a mistake in approving that development, pointin~ out the impact that it has had on the aesthetics of the area. Fahey asked if the Council could deny a plat which met subdivision requirements based on the desire to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Fahey sug~ested that if a three-lot development is more in keepin~ with the aesthetics of the area, 6