Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Action <br />To <br />Item Number <br />Mayor and City Council <br />8.2 <br />Agenda Section <br />Meeting Date <br />Prepared by <br />General Business <br />November 21, 2016 <br />Zack Carlton, Planning Manager <br />Bob Ru recht, Building Official <br />Item Description <br />Reviewed by <br />Development Agreement for Miske Meadows <br />Cal Portner, City Administrator <br />Reviewed by <br />Action Requested <br />Receive comments related to tinning for the issuance of building permits in Miske Meadows and provide <br />direction to city staff. <br />Approve, by motion, the Development Agreement for Miske Meadows. <br />Background/Discussion <br />The conditions imposed by City Council for approval of the resolution for the Final Plat of Miske <br />Meadows include a requirement of a signed Development Agreement. The agreement outlines the costs <br />and responsibilities to the satisfaction of city staff. <br />Staff and the attorney drafted a Development Agreement outlining the responsibilities and are seeking <br />Council approval. The applicant proposed some changes to our standard agreement, most of which staff <br />are comfortable with due to the conditions of the site. However, an agreement has not been reached <br />regarding the timing for issuance of building permits. Our standard Development Agreement states <br />building permits, other than model homes, will not be issued until installation of all public utilities, small <br />utilities (gas, electric, telephone), and the first lift of pavement has been completed. The applicant asked <br />the requirement for the installation of small utilities to be completed relate to the issuance of a Certificate <br />of Occupancy (CO) rather than the building permit. <br />Staff does not support this change as issuing a building permit knowing the possibility that the home may <br />not be ready by move in time creates problems for the city and residents. Frequently, buyers purchase <br />the lot and plan the construction of their new home, frequently have sold their existing home, have <br />closing dates set or have given notice of vacating their current rental property. They would be without a <br />home if the small utilities are not completed by move -in time. <br />If utility installation is delayed due to an early or harsh winter, construction would not occur until the <br />following spring. The alternatives to holding a CO, supplying temporary heat and power to a home <br />without services, would make for a long, noisy, and expensive winter. Staying at a motel is equally <br />burdensome for families as they had planned to spend the winter in their new home. Both of those <br />alternatives have been discussed in the past, and both place the city in the difficult situation of explaining <br />why a permit was issued with the potential of a home not being ready for occupancy. <br />p�y0WIIH110 0 <br />g <br />1�1 YUR <br />