07-11-2001 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JUNE 27, 2001 Fahey stated that he would like to see the packet of information that the developer gave to the townhome purchasers to determine if there was any reference to on -going maintenance for the cul -de -sacs. Scalze pointed out the breakdown of costs that association dues would be applied to contains a line item for cul -de -sac maintenance. Helgeson indicated that that information was given out at the time of closing, but it is difficult to process all that information given the amount of papers that exchange hands during a closing. Helgeson felt that the issue was one of fairness and felt that Pitrina Park property owners should not be taxed for street maintenance when the cul -de -sacs are not maintained. If the City does not take the cul -de -sacs over, then the City should reduce Petrina's property taxes. Fahey pointed out that there are property owners living on County roads where there are no City tax dollars expended for the maintenance of these roads. Fahey indicated that the expenditure of tax dollars does not fall evenly on behalf of every citizen. Fahey felt the issue was one that was between the developer and the townhome association, However, he indicated that he would still like to see the association documents. Montour pointed out that the Pitrina Park residents living on Allen Avenue are paying association dues that go toward the maintenance of cul -de -sacs that they do not use. Fahey stated that the homeowners may have a case against the developer if they were not informed on this issue or the issue was misrepresented. However, the City and the developer entered into an agreement that the cul -de- sacs would be developed as private streets, and that agreement is now binding on the property owners. Mary Claire Reischl, Pitrina Park resident, pointed out that while property owners were clearly informed about ballfield lighting in Pioneer Park, they were not informed about the private cul -de -sac situation. Reischl asked if the property owners had the ability to gate the entrances to the cul -de -sacs. Anderson recommended against gating these cul -de -sacs given the need for emergency vehicle access. Anderson also pointed out that the substandard right -of -way for the cul -de -sacs diminishes the area needed for snow storage when the cul -de -sacs are plowed as well as would result in substandard setbacks if the cul -de -sacs were taken over as public streets. Such an action may result in the need to eliminate or relocate townhome buildings. Fahey pointed out that 30 feet is the standard front -yard setback from the right - of -way. Fahey pointed out that there are at least four other developments in Page 46