Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 1992 <br />of the westerly lots would make it difficult to develop the lots. <br />Mr. Suggs noted that his neighbor to the west had the drainage <br />easement on his lot moved and suggested other drainage areas <br />could also be moved. Mr. Schneider explained that the new <br />wetland regulations may make this difficult. He suggest that an <br />internal street be constructed to serve all the south portion of <br />the lots south of Marvy Street. A resident on Marvy Street said <br />that constructing an internal street would cost the lot owners <br />twice the amount. <br />Chuck Johnson, 120 Marvy Street asked why the access to Apollo <br />Drive was changed. Mr. Schneider said that this was suggested by <br />another property owner. Mr. Johnson said he did not like this <br />suggestion and did not want it. He said it did not make sense. <br />Mr. Schneider explained that the idea was to provide a route for <br />utilities to serve Sunset Oaks in the future. He explained that <br />not all the residents on the south side of Marvy Street are in <br />agreement as to whether their lots should be developed or not. <br />Some lot owners want to have berms and be protected from Apollo <br />Drive and other want to subdivide. <br />Mayor Reinert noted that the plans presented this evening are not <br />finalized. Mr. Johnson asked what was the purpose to move Outlot <br />C and Mayor Reinert explained it was to save the trees. Mr. <br />Johnson said that this plan would be of no value to him and he <br />did not want it. He said he did not want anything close to his <br />house. <br />Steve Leese, 74 Marvy Street said he has the possibility of two <br />(2) prime building lots and this plan would landlock him and not <br />allow him to subdivide. <br />Chuck Jacaway, Minnesota Correctional Facility explained that at <br />this time the Correctional Facility stands neutral on the need <br />for Apollo Drive. The Correctional Facility has agreed to <br />prepare figures on costs to move the fence. However, he noted <br />the real issue is land. He noted that the Commissioner of <br />Corrections will make the final decision regarding issues of <br />security, hidden operation costs during construction and <br />permanent costs for rebuilding the fence. Mr. Jacaway also noted <br />that if the fence is moved there will be the issue of less space. <br />There is also the issue of a moderate speed thoroughfare located <br />very close to the facility. He noted that it may taken as long <br />as 60 days for the Commissioner to study all the issues and make <br />a decision on the matter. <br />Mr. Jacaway noted that one (1) positive issue would be the road <br />to the east. <br />Mayor Reinert explained that the City has a positive goal in this <br />PAGE 8 <br />37 <br />