06-11-2003 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 2003 recommendations #3. A. or #3. B. on page 3 of his report, or Outlot A should be conveyed to the City as outlined under A. or B. on page 3 of his report. Roycraft asked if the owners of the lot to the west have been contacted about participating in the development. Krengel indicated that they were contacted and indicated they were not interested in development at this time, but may be in a few years. Krengel indicated that they are anticipating developing custom - built, upscale homes in Hamel Estates, and want to ensure that when the property to the west develops, that the caliber of the home is comparable. Knudsen indicated that Outlot A is a means of keeping the property to the west from accessing the cul -de -sac. This outlot puts the developer in an advantageous negotiating position. Krengel felt that the way the situation would play out is that they, as developers of L -Iamel Estates, would have to purchase the entire property to the west, including the house, and then subdivide the lot for development at the end of the Hamel Estates cul-de-sac. He did not anticipate the current property owner subdividing and developing. The Planner again pointed out that reserve strips are not allowed under the Subdivision Ordinance. The Planner indicated that in other cases such as this that his office has been involved in, the reserve strip is transferred to the City so that the City controls the future subdivision. In such situations agreements can be put in place that provide for reimbursement of costs to the developer for fair share of street and utility improvements. The Planner also indicated that such an agreement could provide standards for the quality of the house that could be developed. The Planner felt that with the City involved, interests would be balanced. Keis asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of Outlot A if the City takes over the property. The Planner replied that the City would be responsible. Krengel pointed out that another option would be to shorten up the cul -de- sac making the Hamel Estates lots larger and not providing for the potential of future development to the west. The City Planner indicated that the City would be reluctant to landlock a piece of property and would prefer to preserve the potential for future development of that parcel. The Planner noted that the issue for the City is that the ownership of Outlot A by the developer could prevent the future development of the parcel to the west. The Planner stated that he would not recommend approval of a plat that cuts of development potential for an area. - 1 6 -