My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-07-03 P & Z Agenda
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2022
>
2001
>
2001-07-03 P & Z Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2009 2:56:31 PM
Creation date
7/17/2009 2:55:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />May 23, 2001 <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah stated that, as designed, it does not look like it would be difficult to take out <br />the street but stated he questioned whether it is practical to change the street this far into <br />the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft indicated there would be no problem with proposing that the area remain a cul- <br />de-sac when the final plat is presented. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra recommended that Mr. Hannah check with the police and fire <br />departments to determine whether they would have an issue with the street remaining a <br />cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Mr. March stated that as there is no turn around on Pheasant Lane, the cul-de-sac would <br />need to be modified. <br /> <br />Mr. Brian Walters, 1855 Quebec, stated the Parks and Recreation Committee are unsure <br />of the location developer intended on placing the trail. <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah stated that the two (2) requirements presented to him were that the trail <br />connects to the Hunter's Crossing trail and continue to the northeast comer and run <br />through the upland area. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. second by Council Member Travis <br />to set a public hearing on the presented feasibility study for June 13. 2001. All in <br />favor.. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned the easement acquisition costs and <br />assessment amounts were determined. Mr. Peterson indicated they were estimated <br />amounts. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that there would be a resident who was <br />ui:J.happy with the assessments and easement request as he was under the impression that <br />the property would not be developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson eXplained that whenever sewer and water are extended, the assessment <br />amount is based on the number of feet of frontage. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned the relationship of these assessments for <br />this improvement project and how they are related to the project to the north. Council <br />Member Broussard Vickers stated that most of the cost was bore by the developer. <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers also stated that the assessments for residents seemed <br />high in this case. Mr. Peterson stated that Ground Development would pay for 93% of <br />the overall costs to run the services. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned what percentage, in relation to where <br />there are residents, the developer is paying. Mr. Peterson indicated the developer is <br />paying 50% of the costs where there are residents. He then explained that the difference <br />could be because there were not clear-cut frontages for the assessments to the north. <br /> <br />Page 8 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.