Laserfiche WebLink
036 <br />COUNCIL MEETING <br />March 24, 1986 <br />Page Eight <br />figure. Mr. Willenbring gave some cost estimates based on <br />water flow but indicated these were very preliminary figures. <br />A gentleman from the audience asked what the CFS figures indi- <br />cate. Mr. Davidson explained. <br />Mr. Marier moved to close' the public hearing at 8:57 P.M. Mr. <br />Bohjanen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />The Council took a twenty minute break so additional questions <br />could be asnwered by the engineers. <br />PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - UL!JER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - <br />REZONE. ORDINANCE NOS 86 -01 <br />Mayor Benson opened the public hearing at 9:20 P.M. <br />Mr. Kluegel explained this is a replat of the existing Ulmers <br />Rice Lake Addition III and a rezone from Expansion Residential <br />(ER) to R -1. Mr. Ulmer is proposing to build one hundred seven <br />single family homes to be serviced by municipal sewer and water. <br />The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan <br />and is within the MUSA area. The park dedication was paid when <br />the area was platted as Ulmers Rice Lake Addition III. The <br />Planning and Zoning Board have recommended approval subject to <br />obtaining the necessary RCWD and Department of Natural Resources <br />permits and deeds for the required street right -of -way. The <br />Planning and Zoning Board's basis of approval is that the pre- <br />liminary plat complies with the subdivision design standards and <br />conforms to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. <br />Mrs. Cheryl Nelson of 7073 Rice Lake Drive indicated her lot is <br />of the lots that will be required to give a 30' roadway ease- <br />on the back of her lot to Ulmer Construction if a full width <br />t >�r et is to be constructed. She is concerned because if she <br />gives the easement the balance of her lot will not be large enough <br />to subdivide. She is also concerned with who will pay the assess- <br />ment across the back of her lot as well as the connection charges. <br />Mr. Toddie explained it was up to the developer to provide an <br />adequate street right -of -way. Mr. Ulmer said it was his position <br />that it is the City's responsibility to negotiate the right -of -way <br />since the City has the ultimate right to eminent domain. He noted <br />moving the street is not an alternative because he would loose <br />some lots and that would make the plat too expensive to market. <br />Mr. Ulmer said he would be willing to pay for the installation <br />of the street in exchange for the right -of -way. <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />