06-24-2003 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At this point, the decision for the City Council appear to break into three basic options. These are as follows: 1. Permit the subdivision, requiring the Leeward Way half right of way dedication. This option follows the City's general subdivision guidelines, but has other shortcomings. Among these are the substandard temporary cul -de- sac proposed for the terminus of Allan Avenue, and various utility and stormwater issues that will become more severe if development continues in a "piece- meal" fashion. Eventually, a pond will be necessary to manage stormwater, and sanitary sewer needs to go to south for the ultimate development. With only a few remaining lots on the south end, the disparities between benefits and costs become magnified, and make it less likely that an agreement would be made between the neighboring properties to "finish" the development of the area. 2. The second option is to permit the development of the two lots as proposed by Inman, with the future right of way for Leeward Way remaining in private ownership (now proposed by Inman to stay with Inman's homestead property). This option would require covenants and a development agreement that would preserve the right of the City to seek dedication of the right of way when the ultimate development is proposed, and assign costs for future street and utility extensions to the new lots. This option would preclude further "piece- meal" development until the proper utility system can be constructed. 3. The third option would take a stricter stand on piece -meal development, denying the current plat and not permitting any development at all until the entire area can be developed as a unit. Because Inman's project does not comply with City's street construction standards (due to the substandard cul- de -sac), and there are utility questions even with the two -lot arrangement, the City could refuse to approve any project until it can meet all City standards (presumably, this would require full cooperation between both remaining property owners in the area). Staffs position is to recommend that the City Council minimize the amount of piece- meal development over the remaining developable area. Although the City has been willing to permit it occur in the past, the distinction has been that in those cases, each "developer" required the cooperation of no other property owner. This is no longer the case, as utility issues are becoming a concern. Staff would recommend Option 3 above, with Option 2 an alternative, subject to the property owner's willingness to enter into the development agreement and restrictive covenants as described. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Greg Schroeder Ed Inman