CC 10-15-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, October 15 Page six It was asked if it would be advantageous for the City to take an easement now for a potential road if needed in the future. Miller said the City has that option if the City determines this is the proper road location. Hicks moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council approve the modified site plan and building permit for Everest Investment II, subject to the recommenda- tions of the Planning Commission (minutes of 10/2/85) and subject to a 30' wide easement along the east of the site for 1/2 of a potential road, if this is determined by the City to be the appropriate location for the road. Bill Franke, attorney for the developer, said he has a grave concern with the condition to grant an easement for this road; noted that the site plan meets all ordinance requirements; feels it is unfair to impose an . easement which could impair their project. Hicks explained that his motion was an attempt to keep the City's options open; understood that Opus would be willing to pay for the road. Miller noted that we often require easements to protect against future possibilities; noted it would provide more flexibility for the City in the future; noted it is not a foregone conclusion that this is the best siting for the road. Hicks asked how an easement would reduce their ability to sell or receive financing, Franke explained that the City could convey its rights to Opus for the land which causes Everest to consent to give the easement without compensation for a road for the benefit of Opus; aCknowledged that it is not uncommon to dedicate a road when it benefits the property; feels it is unfair to us and unnecessary now, and it impairs our getting a fair return. Peck noted the options if we don't get a road now: 1. Can site the road entirely on the Opus site, 2. Property owners can negotiate the road location. 3. Condemnation by the City, which eventually is an added cost to the developer and is time-consuming. Sather said he feels the City is "cutting the legs out from under the developer"; noted he has accommodated the road if it is determined to be the best location; feels the City is taking away all his negotiating strength; noted the development meets or exceeds the requirements of the City Code. Sather said he prefers that Council not require the easement; feels we would be taking advantage of the developer, Hicks said his intent was to protect the City, not take advantage of anyone. McNiesh suggested the possibility of a "Development Agreement" when the road siting is determined and road is proposed for dedication, Hicks withdrew from his motion the requirement of a 30' road easement, Seconder Hansen agreed. Motion carried as amended. (5-0) Request for SiRn Relocation - Rutter's Bohemian Cue Service, 1660 W. HiRhway 96 - Special Use Permit 79-20 Miller reported that Rutter wants to move the existing sign to the west side of his property, near the driveway where his customers come in, Miller noted that the Special Use Permit allows the sign whe~e it is; explained that, if he is permitted to move it to the proposed location, it would be at the same setback, but elevated 4' above ground (ground elevation is lower at driveway location than at its present location in front of the house). Miller asked if this relocation is considered significant; if so, a public hearing will be required. Council concurred that the relocation, as described, is not significant, . and authorized relocation of the sign accordingly. Report of Fire Chief Dave Koch Koch briefly described the history of Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department which originally consisted of firefighters from the neighborhood around the New Brighton Road station; explained that currently we have 25 fire- fighters at each of the two stations (New Brighton Road and Hodgson Road) and there are 13 pieces of equipment.