My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-02-2002 Parks Commission Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
05-02-2002 Parks Commission Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2008 10:51:57 AM
Creation date
7/23/2008 10:43:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
NIINUTLS <br />CITY COIiNCIL <br />AP12CL 10, 2002 <br />the high water mark and wetland delineation information before they could <br />make their decision. <br />1-he City Administrator felt that the Watershed needed a specific development <br />proposal to evaluate before they could make a determination. The <br />Administrator felt that the burden should be on the developer to submit that <br />information. <br />N(ontour suggested that if the property can be developed with only 4 or 5 lots, <br />it may noC be fnancially feasible to put iu a street and utilities for this few lots. <br />Anderson pointed out that the property cannot be developed without a <br />development plan, the City has a moratorium on the site to hold it as is until it <br />knows development details, yet the property owner is eager to start clearing for <br />a street when the development plan has not been drawn. LeTendre pointed out <br />thaC the Council has placed asix-month moratorium on the site while it is <br />looking at the issue of whether or not the City should purchase the property for <br />open space. <br />whey stated that the moratorium is for a maximum of six months to study Che <br />issues involved with this site. During that time, the propei~Cy owner is free to <br />submit a development proposal Such a proposal would provide the <br />information the City needs to complete its analysis. The moratorium will not <br />be kept in effect for the full six months if a decision can be made earlier. <br />Gahey pointed out that the City needs to determine whether or not the site <br />should be preserved as open space and in order to do so, it needs information <br />on the ordinary high water mark as well as a wetland delineation. <br />The City Administrator noted that the number of lots that can be developed on <br />this property will be impacted by the 75-foot setback required from a wetland. <br />The Administrator indicated Chat until the specific topographic information and <br />wetland delineation information is laid out, the City would only be guessing <br />about the value of the prope~Yy. The City does not know the development <br />potential of the property. <br />Scalze pointed out that the ordinary high water mark will not change. Once <br />Chat information is obtained, the lay out of the lots could be determined. <br />LeTendre indicated that he has submitted a copy of the wetland delineation. <br />The Administrator pointed out that the City has no information about the high <br />water mark. That has not been established. The City can ask the Watershed <br />and the DNR to establish that marl:. However, there will be costs associated <br />with obtaining this information. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.