Laserfiche WebLink
as Spruce Lane. Tree plan shows 50' right-of-ways, <br />32' street sections and 4' attached walks along one <br />side of the street. The zoning is RR. Planning <br />Commission approved the subdivision and PUD with <br />conditions at their August 11, 1987, meeting. <br />The conditions are: 1) The bike path be completed <br />by the developer; 2) an easement obtained by <br />subdivider for a pedestrian path along the utilities <br />easement; 3) 1.982 <~cres of open space dedication <br />4) keep all existing trees in the northern part of <br />the Spruce Street ROW including trees on individual <br />lots except where required by house siting; 5) the <br />City will not accept responsibility for any ditch <br />maintenance north oaf Spruce Street; 6) the entry <br />feature shown on the PUD must be maintained by the <br />subdivider until the last lot is sold. <br />Jon Prouty, applicant, briefly explained the project <br />and thanked the City staff for their help and <br />guidance in the process. <br />Several Councilmen expressed concern regarding the <br />ditch maintenance responsibility. Wanush stated <br />that staff is working on an agreement that can be <br />used when drafting agreements where ditches run <br />through developments. <br />Szymanski expressed concern regarding the bike path <br />and when the permanent path will be constructed. <br />Hundley explained thhat the ditch must be moved and <br />would necessitate tearing up any path constructed <br />now. At the time Phase II construction begins, then <br />the ditch would be located in a permanent fashion <br />and would become appropriate at that time to <br />construct the permanent bike path. <br />Szymanski feels that the front setbacks do not <br />comply with the standards set forth in City code and <br />that the large lot :situation would allow the front <br />setbacks to be larger. Szymanski also stated that <br />he still does not like the narrow street with <br />sidewalk on one side as he has so stated during <br />deliberations for t]he Grove. Szymanski's concerns <br />are not necessarily with the development but with <br />key issues regarding the ditch and certain <br />philosophies developing with each new development, <br />i.e., non-standard setbacks, streets, sidewalks on <br />one side. "I think rules are made for a reason. It <br />is my feeling that these are more or less minimum <br />required type of standards that the City should <br />adhere to. I think developments should come in <br />above and beyond this minimum standard. If these <br />standards are obsolE~te or not appropriate anymore, <br />then we should be changing our standards." <br />3 <br />