Laserfiche WebLink
as Spruce Lane. The plan shows 50' right-of-ways, <br /> 32' street sections and 4' attached walks along one <br /> side of the street. The zoning is R.R. Planning <br /> Commission approved the subdivision and PUO with <br /> conditions at their August 11, 1987, meeting. <br /> The conditions ores 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 acres 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 of 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 /> Handley explained that 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 staged 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 the Grove. Ssymanski'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 obsolete or not appropriate anymore, <br /> then we should be changing our standards.' <br /> 3 <br />