01/16/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1980 B. CONSENT CALRUAR (Continued) 4W 6. b) Recanme-ded approval of Site Approvals for Two lots, LANDS OF CIOSS, Files SA #6101-77 and SA #6102-77. V Mr. Nowak, Applicant's engineer, sought clarification regarding the payment of subdivision fees. He noted that the January 11, 1980 report from the city planner to the city manager recamended that the standard subdivision fees be applied - totaling approximately $16,000 - but that on the Conditions of Approval all but approximately $475 had been waived. The City Planner reported to Council that his reports included the road -in - lieu and path -in -lieu fees for their information if they decided that they were applicable to these Site Approvals. Councilwoman Hillestad asked if these fees could be waived until the improve- ments were actually made. The City Manager responded that a docunent would be recorded stating that certain fees would be due if the property were sold. The City Attorney stated that such an agreement should stipulate that the fees would be paid at the time of the building permit or at some specified date in the future. Mr. Noack, Applicant's engineer, stated why the Planning Cmvdssion had agreed to waive the fees. This was a legally approved subdivision 13 years ago; Mrs. Closs was not the original developer nor did she have any intention of developing; she had given 1 lot to the Mid -Peninsula Open Space District, had made 1 lot out 2, thus reducing a possible 4 lots to 2. He also noted that retaining the gravel road maintained the rural character of the area and the road was in excellent condition in its present state. Coumcilmanbers Perkins and Hillestad expressed concern about waiving fees in connection with a gift - gift deeding should not be a consideration. Planning Commissioner Rydell pointed out that the Planning Commission did not consider the gift situation a factor in waiving the fees. In response to a question from Councilman Nystrom, the City Manager responded that the fees were not paid at the time of the original subdivision because the Town did not have such fees at that time. Mayor Pro Tem Proft seeking clarification of a point, was told that the road being offered for dedication was currently a private road with the Neary property having an easement over the road and the recawaandation of the Planning Commission was that Mrs. Closs offer for dedication a 60' wide easement as a public road. Mrs. Closs, Applicant, stated that the proposal of the gift to the Open Space District was to p the lard open. It had nothing to do with the waiving of fees. Mrs. Closs further asked about the dedication of the road as a public road. For years it had been a private mad with an easement to the Neary property. It had not been offered to the City nor had the City ever maintained it. Was it necessary to offer it as a public road? Mrs. Closs further asked if the owner could apply the fees against a road or did the city get the fees? Mayor Pro Tan Proft replied that if fees were required, the responsibility for the road would be the city's. ae