CCP 05-24-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 6 the escrow amount for the proposed work which is attached to the development agreement. e Staffis recommending that the portion ofthe escrow for the removal of the cul-de-sac and extension of roadway to the Bachman in the amount calculated by the City Engineer be held until the extension is constructed to the Bachman property. The City Engineer has preliminarily calculated a total of$21,750.00 in escrow based on a standard street reconstruction cost the City has experienced (Exhibit F). The applicant has stated their opposition to the requirement for an escrow for the future street extension to their north property line. Several other developments have been required to construct the road to the edge of their property in the event of future development. In the Hanson Addition and Keithson Addition the property adjacent was portrayed by adjacent property owners as "never going to develop". It is the Staffs opinion that the code requires the developer to construct the road across the entire length ofthe plat. It is also staffs opinion that the purpose to construct the temporary cul-de-sac short of the north property line is acceptable, as long as funding (i.e., escrow) is in place to extend the road in the future. . "The City Staffs desire (which runs contrary to the unanimous wishes of the neighborhood) is that the road eventually be completed through Josephine East's property and through Mr. Bachman's property." The City Code Section 22-8 (a) states the proposed subdivision shall conform to the city plan. The "official map" shows Shoreline Lane extending through the property. . . "Due to the demands of the City Staff, Josephine East, LLC has already scaled back its project from five lots to four lots to accommodate the cul-de-sac." And "The loss of the fifth lot costs Josephine East, LLC, approximately $40,000. The "official map" study showed six lots on the Josephine East property. The applicant forwarded out the idea of four lots at the March 29, 1999 City Council meeting in order to accommodate a cul-de-sac and that they believed that two lots east of Shoreline Lane were more valuable than four lots. Condition 6. They are close to finalizing approval with the Rice Creek Watershed District. Condition 7. The applicant has not commented on this condition thus, we assume the applicant agrees. Condition 8. The applicant has modified their plan to show the required easements. Condition 9. The applicant was given a sample set of requirements that the City Engineer requires to review the roadway details. The applicant has submitted back to the .