City Council Minutes 1987 10 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not the tot lot should be built. Both of these would be done in the second phase of the develop- ment, but we are requesting Council authorize or approve us to move forward with the first phase of the development, the first 60 lots, during the next couple of months~tha~t we have an opportunity to meet with the Council in a Study Session and present what we think are relevant facts and some suggestions about how retention areas should be treated at least in our project and at the same time give staff an opportunity to respond to some of the maintenance costs that may be increased as a result of some bof the recommendations. We' have a limited period of time that we can actually continue construction yet this Fall and that is the: basis for our request this evening." Hundley stated that while there are some issues of real importance regarding certain landscaping treatment and features that are important to look at, they also have some financial implications to the City. It could affect long-term how we do business and how our Capital Improvement Program is funded. "I think it important that we look at this in a broader perspec:tive and discuss it at a Work Session. However, staff agree with the desire to proceed with the project. It is however, abnormal for us not to have a development agreement in hand, signed, sealed and recorded with the County." Hundley explained tYie alternate ways to proceed: 1) not allow the development to proceed without a subdivision agreement filed; 2) allow Homart to proceed and work out: the differences between now and Phase II with the understanding that Phase II can not proceed until tYiis issue is worked out; 3) continue the projeci~ under Homart's current develop- ment agreement whiles working out a subdivision agree- ment stipulating that this issue be resolved in a specified period of time prior to the development of Phase II. Hundley recommended this third alterna- tive since the only outstanding issue is that of the treatment of the detention area. Szymanski voiced concerns over not operating under a subdivision agreement with all stipulations agreed to and signed by thE~ City and the developer. Rautenstraus stated that the plat has been recorded so it is a valid plat. The subdivision agreement was not signed and itherefore, not recorded. Anew agreement would be drafted with the same basic language as the one drafted for R.B. Development except with a provision regarding the detention area and Homart would execute that. 6