Laserfiche WebLink
'111UTES <br />City Council <br />Dec. 12, 1935 <br />Klidzejs Fahey reported that the City has denied similar requests. Fahey stated <br />Property that the City cannot approve a lot unless it has frontage on a public <br />Division street. <br />(Cont.) <br />Fahey asked if the City has ever required a road easement, but that <br />the easement not be developed. Fahey cited the case of R & S Auto. <br />Blesener pointed out that the City will need more easement from <br />the Mitchell property. <br />Mr. Klidzejs asked the type of road the City would require. Fahey <br />reported that a 50 foot easement would be required with a 30 foot <br />paved area. Klidzejs pointed out that Twin Lake Road is only 16 feet <br />wide. <br />Mr. 3lesener reported that the City need 25 feet of road easement from <br />Klidzejs in order to give Tracts 3 and C access. Blesener did not think <br />that the City should require paving at this time. <br />Klidzejs indicated that he was willing td give this easement along <br />Tracts A and B, but pointed out that he did not own Tract C. <br />The Planner reported that the code allows the dedication of half a <br />street if practical to require the dedication of the other half when <br />the adjoining property develops. Mr. Grittman then reported that <br />the Klidzejs property would have frontage on a public street, although <br />it would not be fully dedicated. Grittman suggested that the Council <br />determine the timefra ^e for the development of the Mitchell property. <br />The Engineer felt that the 25 foot road dedication would be sufficient. <br />The Engineer did not feel that the City should expect Klidzejs to <br />give the other 25 feet of road that would be required from the Mitchell <br />property. <br />Scalze pointed out that the property owners in the Woodlyn Avenue area <br />would also like to add on to their buildings and the Council said that <br />they cannot do this without dedicating and improving a road through <br />the area. Mardini pointed out that this is a commercial area. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City has the potential for the development <br />of the adjoining property in this case. <br />Scalze felt that Tracts 3 and C should not be allowed to expand in <br />any way until the road is improved. <br />Scalze also felt that neither of the property owners of Tracts 3 or C <br />should protest the improvement of the road when the time comes. <br />The City Clerk suggested that a developer's agreement be required. <br />PAGE 4 <br />