Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilman Cussen <br />Mead St. <br /> <br />Councilman Ferrera <br />Retention Pond <br /> <br />Randy Hartmann <br />Developer of Cedarwood Park <br /> <br />6/1/82 <br /> <br />Page -6- <br /> <br />with the Uniform Building Code. However, <br />the City's subdivision agreement stipulates <br />various improvements must be made, such as <br />curb, gutter, etc. before the CO is issued. <br /> <br />Commented at the Planning Commission meeting <br />concerns were expressed about Mead St. being <br />very narrow and hazardous - has this <br />been resolved? <br />Rupp advised this concern will be handled <br />when the area east of the subdivision is platted. <br />If it is the desire of Planning Commission <br />and City Council that Mead St. does not <br />connect with Jefferson Ave. it would best <br />be discussed when the subdivision is platted. <br /> <br />Expressed concern regarding the retention <br />pond - would feel more at ease if this was <br />done with the Jefferson Ave. extension, to <br />prevent a similiar situation encountered <br />at the Mission Greens Subdivision. Wished <br />to have this requirment placed in the agreement. <br />Attorney Rautenstraus advised the Resolution <br />could be approved with this requirement as <br />a condition. <br />Ferrera stated he felt this should be done <br />by September, 1982. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartmann was of the op~n~on that this <br />requirement was in the subdivision agreement. <br />Attorney Rautenstraus advised this was based <br />on the drainage plan, which needed the approval <br />of the City Engineer. <br />Hartmann stated specific plans have been made <br />for the scheduling of Jefferson Ave. extension, <br />and the outlet for the detention pond which <br />goes under Jefferson Ave. obvsiously must be <br />done before the extension occurs. The grading <br />for the detention is presently being done. <br />He felt that since the agreements have been <br />signed, the concerns would be addressed. <br />Hartmann emphasized they were seeking 3 approvals <br />PUD revision, the replat, and the 22 unit town- <br />house site. The motivation behind the con- <br />ceptal change requested was that the original <br />plan as approved would have been out-of-scale <br />with the existing neighborhood and with the <br />single family homes being constructed. <br />