10-24-07 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 2007 with the Code that is on the books today. Gores also noted that the Code says that the City must provide for future road connections, not bring the pavement to the edge of adjoining property. Keis noted that the City must consider how to connect future streets in this area. The other option would be to allow the area to develop with a series of 500 foot cul-de-sacs. Mrs. Gores again noted the Seeleyville muck at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. Mrs. Gores indicated that this area is saturated. She reported that they currently do not get flooding on their property from the Richie property, but was concerned that this would change given the soil types. Allan asked if the Gores have discussed their concerns with the developer. Mrs. Gores reported that the developer has not spoken with them, and has only had contact with Mr. Quam after he cut down his trees. Allan pointed out that the trees were not cut down. Mrs. Gores indicated that it looked like the developer's contractor drove over the trees. The Gores pointed out that in approving the development as proposed, the City is only speculating that the adjacent properties want to develop in the manner that will be dictated by the road connections from Richie Place. Mrs. Gores asked who will pay for the road connection. Allan replied that the developer will be required to pay for street improvements within the plat. Keis stated that he appreciates the Gores' opinion, but noted that 50 different developers could propose 50 different concept plans. Keis stated that he does not know what the best plan would be, but pointed out that the plan being considered by the Council looks to be a good one. The City Engineer indicated that the soil borings done by the developer did not indicate Seeleyville muck in the area of the proposed cul-de-sac. A boring was done in a location that would be next to the cul-de-sac curb line. The Engineer pointed out, however, that the soil conditions further west are not known. The Engineer also reported that there are ways to deal with muck. The much could be subcut and replaced and the area surcharged. Blesener asked about run-off rates. The City Engineer pointed out that the developer must maintain current rates of discharge. He noted that the drainage will be improved given the Watershed's requirements for infiltration and on-site retention. The Engineer noted that the developer is required to ensure that the first inch of run-off does not leave the site. In the event of a larger storm, run-off must be treated and no more than currently occurs. The Engineer pointed out that the overflow for the 13