Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 22, 1999 <br />Morelan noted that typically the City would put in a street improvement of <br />this nature, and would assessthe costback accordin~ly. <br />Scalze noted that typically property develops around a cul-de-sac and <br />indicated that the street also made sense since it would result in one access <br />on Twin Lake Road rather than three. <br />Pedersen asked if Oberhamer had any drawings showing a four-lot <br />development. Oberhamer did and explained the four-lot concept to the <br />Council. The City Planner su~;gested that typically a 100-foot right-of- <br />way is needed for a cul-de-sac. However, this could be reduced to <br />accommodate a 30 to 35 foot diameter cul-de-sac. The City Administrator <br />pointed out that the Australian cul-de-sac consists of a 35-foot radius with <br />30 feet being paved. <br />Fahey stated that he would rather consider a substandard cul-de-sac than <br />continue with homes on an unimproved trail. Fahey indicated that this <br />would be consistent with what has been required of other properties. <br />LaValle agreed. <br />Norma Klidzejs, 3244 Twin Lake Road, asked why the affected property <br />owners were not notified of this discussion. Klidzejs reported that the <br />family has owned this prope~ty for many years, and should be asked for <br />their input into the matter. Klidzejs reported that the property owners in <br />the area do not want the road improvement, and indicated that she was not <br />aware of the requirement that the road go in at the time the Mitchell <br />property develops. <br />Fahey reported that the Swift Construction proposal is only a concept <br />review at this time and is not a formal public hearing. Fahey again <br />commented that at the time the Klidzejs property division was approved it <br />was with the understanding that the road would be improved when the <br />MiCChell property developed. Fahey pointed out that a condiYion of <br />approval of the Klidzejs property division was that they sign a <br />development agreement waiving their rights to object to the road <br />improvement. <br />Klidzejs indicated that she has never seen this document. <br />Fahey again pointed out that the Klidzejs' family waived their rights to <br />object to the improvement of Mitchell Trail at the time their property <br />division was approved in 1985. If the development agreement was never <br />followed through on, Fahey indicated that he would still hold the Klidzejs' <br />family to that condition of approval of their property division. Fahey <br />