Laserfiche WebLink
<br />forcing it. He stated the City would not move forward with anything unless there was an <br />agreement with that subdivision and they wanted it. <br /> <br />Ms. Locke asked Mr. Wilson to confirm that there would be no action in any private subdivision <br />that would move forward without full involvement of that private subdivision. Mr. Wilson stated <br />that was correct. <br /> <br />Concern was expressed about private subdivision inclusion in the approval process and requests <br />to not be a part of the Plan; it should be made clear that no private subdivision would be required <br />to be included unless they chose to and some might not want to be included at all. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti stated that staff recognized subdivisions may not want to be involved and might <br />want to be removed from designation in the Plan; to avoid bringing plan back to the Plan <br />Commission, she suggested an amendment to the Resolution to state something to the effect of <br />recognition that requests from private subdivisions to remove their designation may be <br />forthcoming and that these items would be considered and handled administratively by the <br />Department of Public Works and Parks. <br /> <br />It was discussed that it should be acknowledged in the Resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Halpert asked how many private subdivisions there were in University City that would be <br />impacted by the Plan. It was stated there were approximately six. <br /> <br />Ms. Locke asked for public comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Dennis Fuller, 7365 Colgate Avenue and trustee of University Park Subdivision, addressed <br />the Plan Commission members. He stated they had been at these meetings and wanted further <br />research into the private subdivision guidelines. He stated the Plan could be good or the City, <br />but in the Plan it was stated that streets had to meet certain requirements. He was concerned <br />about the City not having these discussions with his subdivision. Mr. Fuller also stated he was <br />concerned about obtaining grants for improvements without funding included in the Plan. He <br />stated they would have to bring streets up to levels mentioned in the Plan which would cost $1.5 <br />million. He had additional concerns about liability and funding issues not addressed in the Plan <br />and that he would not support the Plan until these questions were answered. <br /> <br />There were no further comments from the public. <br /> <br />Ms. Locke asked for any additional questions or comments from the Plan Commission regarding <br />the Resolution before them. <br /> <br />A question was asked regarding the language in the Resolution and if it was strong enough to be <br />clear that the private subdivisions have no obligation to pursue this and if they were not satisfied, <br />they could say no. <br /> <br />tm; šE  <br /> <br /> <br />