City Council Agenda and Packet 1987 11 05

Home Browse Search

I not the tot lot should be built. Both of these e would be done in the second phase of the develop- ment, but we are requesting Council authorise or approve us to move forward with the first phase of the development, the first 60 lots, during the next' couple of months• that 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 of the recommendations. We have a limited period of time that we can actually continue construction yet this Pall and that is the basis for our request this evening.• Bundley 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 perspective 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 the alternate ways to proceeds 1) not allow the 4e aioormant to proewod 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 this issue is worked out/ 3) continue the project under Homart's current develop- ment agreement while 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. Bundley recommended this third alterna- tive since the only outstanding issue is that of the treatment of the detention area. Ssymanski 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 therefore, not recorded. A new 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 mart would execute that. 4