My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 07 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1986 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 07 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:56 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 2:27:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
7/1/1986
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1986 07 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
164
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
Applicant Jon Prouty and Nancy Blackburn of <br /> Downing Leach reviewed for Council their plan <br /> showing conceptually tow Spruce Lane would be <br /> developed assuming that at some point the entire <br /> area would be annexed into the City. Several <br /> meetings were held with the property owners in the <br /> Spruce Lane area wherein this oonveptual plan was <br /> developed. Spruce Lase is to be kept as a <br /> rural setting with a low density neighborhood and <br /> will have a slow grow-out rate. <br /> Mayor Fauson asked for anyone wishing to speak in <br /> favor of or in opposition to this Ordinance. <br /> Xacy Carruthers, 561 Garfield Ave., stated that <br /> having Walnut Street as the ■ajar access to this <br /> development was not desirable to many residents <br /> on Garfield mad Walnut. <br /> Carnival asked for clarification on the impact of <br /> Walnut. Wanush explained that the short term <br /> impact is access just to those three parcels and <br /> would not "go through" at this time. However, <br /> Walnut would probably be extended should the <br /> Wiggett parcel be annexed and a development plan <br /> proposed. Long term, it is probable that Walnut <br /> would be the major access. Wanush feels that <br /> there would not be a major impact on Walnut as it <br /> won't serve as a short cut for other traffic. It <br /> would only serve those people in the Spruce Lane <br /> development. <br /> Szymanski voiced concern with being able to <br /> determine the water needs when the City doesn't know <br /> how many houses there ultimately will be. Wanush <br /> explained that the agreement asks for one-half of <br /> the fee up-front. At the tine of subdivision and <br /> the number of houses is determined, the remainder <br /> of the Money i• due upon issuance of 1/3 of the <br /> building permits. <br /> In ?espouse to Synanski's question regarding the <br /> $2.25 per s.f. service expansion fee, Wanush <br /> explained that both the Planning Commission and <br /> City Council decided to put a $5,000 cap on this <br /> fee when the Faber Annexation took place. The fee <br /> for that house would have been nearly $201000 and <br /> it was felt that it was an excessive amount. Most <br /> houses in the City generate approximately $3,000 <br /> to $3,SOD foe. <br /> Szymanski feels that this imposes a bias in that <br /> the larger the house, the larger the income and <br /> the ability to pay the fee. Szymanski feels it <br /> doesn't make sense to charge those with smaller <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.