Laserfiche WebLink
May 14, 1979 Page 5 <br />Roger Baumgartner called the Council's attention to consider the Comprehensive Plan <br />calling for low density in the area. He also pointed out the possibility of <br />increased traffic created by the development. Mr. Lundquist replied the density <br />would be no greater than other properties in the area. Mayor McCarty then asked <br />Mr. Lundquist if he felt he could build 48 homes on the property as there are 48 <br />apartment units. Mr. Lundquist replied no. <br />Councilmember Forslund asked Mr. Lundquist to address himself to the increased <br />traffic, as well as the drainage required. Mr. Lundquist replied the Planning <br />Commission had no objection to the drainage required. Councilmember Forslund <br />stated there will be drainage and it should be addressed since it would affect the <br />surrounding area. <br />When asked by Mayor McCarty if they had a drainage plan, Mr. Lundquist answered <br />they did and it has been submitted to the City. He indicated the land slopes <br />toward the lake and runoff could be directed to the catch basin. <br />Mayor McCarty indicated that, according to the new Resolution #983, there should <br />be no more runoff after development than before. He suggested the developer will <br />have to have some means to retain on site. <br />Councilmember Hodges indicated it would be foolish to retain when the facility <br />pipes are already there. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth pointed out a potential problem with the number of outdoor <br />parking spaces. He indicated other apartment buildings have had a problem with <br />residents not wanting to park indoors in the summer. <br />With a limited number of outdoor spaces, it may result in parking in the streets, <br />etc. Councilmember Ziebarth questioned if this could be rectified. Mr. Lundquist <br />indicated they could provide outdoor spaces by changing the design of the garage <br />to provide outdoor spaces that would be roofed. Another possibility would be to <br />drop the fee for indoor spaces in summer. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth stated he did not believe the second alternative would be <br />a viable solution and suggested the developer address the problem in more detail. <br />Mr. Lundquist indicated Councilmember Ziebarth's point was well taken and will <br />provide more parking outdoors. <br />Councilmember Rowley questioned whether they had written permission to cut for <br />driveway access. Mr. Lundquist indicated they would use existing ingress and <br />egress roads. There was no objection, but could obtain written approval if <br />necessary. <br />Roger Baumgartner questioned if the development planned to control drainage by <br />retaining on site, and given this requirement, the area wouldn't allow for more <br />than one building. Mr. Lundquist replied they can meet requirements and still <br />provide holding ponds. However, if the storm sewer can be used, it would be <br />preferrable, and in the City's best interest. <br />Mr. Thomas Steffens, developer's attorney, indicated the key point is to determine <br />whether the development is compatible. The developer should not be excluded from <br />services that other residents are entitled to. <br />