Laserfiche WebLink
June 26, 1978 Page 5 <br />Mayor Pickar closed the public hearing and opened the next public hearing. <br />MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING <br />Mayor Pickar stated that the hearing would be directly affected by Project 1978 -5. <br />Engineer Hubbard added that the Council should not take any final action until the <br />storm sewer improvements were ordered. <br />Mr. Olson stated that he and Mr. Eigenheer last been before the Planning Commission <br />in April, where the issue was tabled pending a decision on the storm sewer and <br />Edgewood Drive. Mr. Olson pointed out on the plot plan that there is an existing <br />subdivision to the east, a swampy area to the north, Edgewood Drive on the west and <br />County Road I on the south, and showed on the plot plan what they have planned. <br />Councilmember Baumgartner expressed concern with how the lots would drain, since the <br />lots that would drain south would add to the problems already in that area. <br />Mayor Pickar pointed out that Staff had recommended a sketch plan and asked why <br />Mr. Eigenheer and Mr. Olson had not decided to go with it, since it added one extra <br />lot and did not require any variances. Mr. Eigenheer replied that the Staff plan <br />did not take into consideration the contour of the land, since some lots would <br />require a good deal of fill, whereas with his plan he would only have to fill in <br />three lots. He added that with Staff's plan, he most likely would have to tax <br />forfeit the four lots due to the expense of filling them. <br />Mayor Pickar asked why they could not fill the lots on the Staff plan, as they would <br />have to fill those same lots on their own plan. Mr. Eigenheer added that they also <br />did not like the depth of the lots on the sketch plan. Mayor Pickar pointed out that <br />with Staff's plan they would be gaining one more lot. <br />Engineer Hubbard pointed out that if the roadway was shifted 5' to the south on <br />Mr. Eigenheer's plan, all the lots would meet code. Mr. Olson stated that the <br />Council must remember that this is what the developer wants to do, and unless there <br />are major problems, he should be allowed to do it. <br />Administrator Achen expressed concern that enough fill would not be brought in for the <br />lots, which would contribute to the water problems. Mr. Olson replied that the drainage <br />would be taken care of. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated that there were many drainage problems that would have to <br />be solved first, and that also, if and when the preliminary plat is approved, there <br />are two variances required and that developers have been turned down in the past for <br />not showing hardship. Councilmember Rowley asked if that hardship would have to be <br />shown in this case. Attorney Meyers replied that it would, and that it would have <br />to be proven that it was anunsolveable problem before a variance could be granted. He <br />added that if the Council were to grant a variance without applying the test the courts <br />have applied, it would weaken the City's position for enforcing variances later. <br />Mr. Eigenheer stated that the variances required were small variances. <br />Administrator Achen pointed out that if the houses were to face on County Road I, <br />traffic in the future would be getting heavy enough that the residents would have a <br />hard time getting out onto County Road I. He added that the drive should come in <br />from the same direction the house faces. <br />