Laserfiche WebLink
February 26, 1979 Page 3 <br />Official Rose explained that the reason for allowing the 160' splits <br />was because when the City put sewer and water in, they allowed the <br />citizens to divide those lots to help pay for the assessments. He <br />added that Staff would recommend resurrecting the old ordinance to <br />keep in the spirit that was originally set. <br />Official Rose reported that water and sewer is stubbed to the property <br />lines for lots 1 -4, water is stubbed to lot 5, with water service being <br />available in the street, lot 7 already has services, and lots 6, 8, 9 <br />and 10 have sewer and water service available in the street. Limited <br />storm sewer service is available on Greenwood Drive, but the present <br />system does not meet a 3 -year storm frequency capacity and the area <br />has experienced problems with drainage. Official Rose added that the <br />easements are adequate for the development. <br />Official Rose recommended that if the development is approved, the City <br />should require that all the lots drain to the street, basements below <br />907 elevation be required to be drain tiled, and that bonding of $500 <br />per single family lot and $1,000 per duplex lot be required. <br />Official Rose reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed the <br />plat and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and also recommended <br />that a drainage study be ordered for the project. He added that Staff <br />would recommend that the Council authorize Staff to charge an additional <br />fee of $2,500 to cover a drainage study. He explained that the cost <br />could be assessed to the project but that the City has a policy of <br />f having the developer front -end the costs. <br />Official Rose reported that it had come to Staff's attention that the <br />developer had started filling lots 2 and 3, without a permit, and that <br />two or three loads of fill had been put in and some grading had been <br />done. He added that Staff had notified the developer that a fill permit <br />was required and it most likely would not be granted until the plat was <br />approved and that no further fill could be brought in. Official Rose <br />reported that it was Staff's opinion that the fill had not changed the <br />grade of the land detrimentally. <br />Mayor McCarty asked if copies of the plat had been sent to the proper <br />authorities, such as Rice Creek Water Shed District and the County. <br />Official Rose replied that they had and that he had also sent copies to <br />the attorney and engineering firm. He added that the reply the City had <br />received was the standard form letter that they have received before. <br />Mayor McCarty asked what was being done under 42.05, Subdivision 2, section <br />5. Attorney Meyers replied that the Council should have information <br />that would clarify the soil and drainage conditions for the site. He <br />added that the Council is aware of the drainage problems in the area and <br />should act accordingly. Official Rose added that Staff has recommended <br />a study be done at the expense of the developer to determine the best <br />course of action. <br />Mayor McCarty asked if the costs of the <br />,i 42.06. Official Rose replied that they <br />had already paid $660 in costs and that <br />$2500 be required to pay for a drainage <br />project had been covered, under <br />had been covered as the developer <br />Staff had requested an extra <br />study. <br />