CC_Minutes_2008_0915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 15, 2008 Page 17 oped through compromise with staff. Councilmember Roe suggested that part of the park dedication fees could be applied to the construction costs to the City. Councilmember Willmus opined that if the cul-de-sac was constructed, as part of the cost of the roadway and infrastructure cost of the developer, he did not con- sider the road for the benefit of the park, but a future benefit to properties to the south; with the roadway benefiting the developer's ingress and egress for their site, one of which happens to be of auxiliary benefit to the park. Councilmember Pust advised that she hadn't changed her mind; while appreciat- ing the developer's willingness to pay the park dedication fee. Councilmember Pust opined that there were too many things being sought to make the develop- ment work, and in trying to solve a public problem with too small of a lot at the park. Councilmember Pust noted that the park Master Plans were in the process of being reviewed and potentially revised, and observed that it was a long way to the south connection, and may encourage more vehicle traffic, access, or different answers may become evident. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of having those discussions; and while opining that it made sense to go forward with the de- velopment, it made sense to go forward with future park planning on a separate track. Councilmember Pust opined that the cul-de-sac may be needed, but that it should be at the developer's cost on their land; that park dedication fees should be paid as indicated; and that a separate process for Langton Lake shouldn't insist on widening the road for more parking, but that parking needs could be handled in a better way. Discussion ensued regarding the turnaround. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of a turnaround on the developer's prop- erty, at their cost, at a size and turn radius indicated as adequate by the City's Public Works Department. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the turnaround on the developer's property; however, noted that he was open to it being located on public property; and preferred a wider rather than narrower road width for safety purposes. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the turnaround on public property, with no additional width to the roadway; however, noted that he was flexible to locat- ing it on the developer's property if that was the way to achieve the turnaround. Councilmember Ihlan opined that a public road was not needed as part of this de- velopment; that the park land dedication be paid; and that areas be preserved next to the park, without removing more trees; and that she would not support the cul- de-sac on public property or extra width of the roadway.