03-27-2013 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 27, 2013 alternative was to never be able to develop the back of her property, she would develop it right away. Dave Brausen noted that the H plan provides an access to Arcade Street as a way out of the development area. He noted that the Arcade Street access would not have to be developed right way, but wanted to point out the option. Brausen also noted that the City Code states a 500 foot limitation on the length of cul -de -sac streets. Brausen then reviewed Brausen option #3 (the easement plan), noting the Administrator's comments that "this option does not comply with the City's subdivision ordinance due to the fact it creates two double - frontage lots." Brausen pointed out that the easement has been in place since 1968. He noted that the Pinetree Pond plat, which he pointed out does not have final approval, is causing the double - frontage lots, not the easement. Brausen then noted the Planner's March 201h report states that "the alternative access location as proposed, rather than the existing easement, appears to provide the greatest likelihood of meeting this standard." Brausen interpreted this to mean that the ghost plat results in double - frontage lots. Brausen returned to the Administrator's report which states, "remember that the ability to utilize this right -of -way has been made more feasible by the Pinetree Pond plat proposal." Brausen indicated that this is true of any new road being developed, the development of one road creates the opportunity for the development of another road. Brausen took issue with the implication that his family is indebted to the Pinetree Pond development. Steve Brausen commented that the statements have been made that no variances are needed for the ghost plat. Brausen pointed out a proposed building pad on one lot within the ghost plat which he felt would require a variance. Dave Brausen stated that in his earlier option drawings, City staff called him on the building pad issue, but noted that the same issue he was called on exists in the ghost plat. Dave Brausen pointed out the Administrator's comment in his report that no representative of the Brausen family attended the January 24th meeting. Brausen indicated that there was some confusion with dates, otherwise his family would have been represented. With regard to the Administrator's report that the City could not reach agreement with the Brausen's on a property value, Brausen replied that this was correct and indicated that while the Administrator suggested about $37,000 per lot, they were at about double that amount. With regard to comments made that fill would be needed on the Brausen property, Brausen indicated that that was not a deal breaker. 14