CC 06-24-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 24 Page three require Council's involvement relative to the right-of-way sited 1/2 on adjacent property; stated he cannot promise a resolution with the neighbor on the road right-of-way. McGuire said he objects to paying more than his share of this road. Zappia said they will look at alternatives, but must know what the numbers are. George Winiecki said he feels he must see the costs; said he cannot commit himself, and/or family, without knowing the costs. Sather asked if defer- ment of assessments for four or five years seems reasonable. Winiecki said he needs to know their proposed costs for sewer and road. Zappia said that knowing the costs will help both in negotiating resolution of the road right-of-way. . An approximate 1/3 - 2/3 road assessment split, based on acreage, was sug- gested as a reasonable approach for consideration by McGuire and Winiecki. Lynden was asked if there is any basis for this .type of assessment split. Lynden said assessments are based on benefit; such a split is reasonable consideration at the assessment hearing. Lynden said that a provision that the developer will not contest the assessments can be included in the Development Agreement, if this is desired by Council. Raddatz was said he has was $15/LF. asked his off-hand estimate had no calculations lately; Woodburn said $80/LF (both of linear foot road costs. Raddatz stated curb and gutter recently sides) is probably in the ballpark. McNiesh reported that past procedure has been to declare that the petition is adequate and order the Feasibility Report, which will give the costs; also to have a written agreement in which the developer agrees to pay the costs of preparation of the Feasibility Report if the project is aborted; noted that frequently the Feasibility Report will also include assessment figures. Hicks moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve the Edgewater Estates Phase I General Plan, and the Preliminary Plat of the entire site, subject to: 1. City Planner approval of exterior lighting plan and landscape plan. 2. City Attorney's approval of a recordable document allowing buildings on the flowage easement on lots 6, 7 and 8, block 1. 3. Resolution with neighbor of right-of-way of Parkshore Drive, sited 1/2 on each property. tl.t.d t/€.A- ~ 4. Reduction of length of Parkshore DriveAto 500'; change in length to be added to park land dedication. 5. City Engineer approval of drainage and grading plans. 6. Resolution of park dedication requirement prior to apartment building occupancy. 7. Resolution of garage sprinkling issue requested by LJVFD Chief. . Sather asked Hicks if he would be amenable to an amendment to the motion, that McGuire will be able to build the road entirely on his property if the road right-of-way on the adjacent property cannot be negotiated. Hicks said he would not; said he would possibly suggest proceeding with condemnation but would want to think more about this. Peck concurred with Hicks; would like to have costs made available to both property owners; agrees Parkshore Drive should be located 1/2 on each property: Hicks said, if resolution on the road is not reached, applicant will have to return to Council to resolve the matter. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Hicks moved to adopt Resolution No. 85-24, DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT, subject to receipt of letter from developer, agreeing to pay for preparation of the Feasibility Report if the project is abandoned. Motion was seconded by Sather and carried unanimously. (4-0) Council authorized the City Engineer to prepare preliminary road cost figures, prior to preparation of the Feasibility Report, for use by the affected Parkshore Drive property owners in their efforts to resolve the road right-of-way; preparation of preliminary cost report to be paid by the City.