My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000050_pg132
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000050
>
gr00090_000050_pg132
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 7:08:35 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 11:02:47 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
June 11, 1979 Page 4 <br />water. He stated they had used a 35% runoff coefficient which is adequate <br />for residential. Official Rose stated they had run through a study and <br />this system easily had the proper capacity and actually superceded it. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated she would still like the engineers to look at <br />it so the development agreement can be prepared before the next meeting. <br />Councilmember Forslund withdrew the original motion and Mayor McCarty <br />withdrew the second, as well as the amendment. Councilmember Ziebarth <br />withdrew the second of the amendment. <br />MSP (Rowley / Forslund) to request Short - Elliott- Hendrickson review the Gale <br />Addition proposed specifications and grading plans for a recommendation and <br />input prior to theapplicants submission of a development agreement and <br />before the June 25 Council meeting. This is contingent upon the applicant's <br />ability to fulfill the building requirements before that time. This review <br />should be at the applicant's expense. 4 ayes <br />MINOR SUBDIVISION -- BAYPORT BUILDERS- -7749 GREENWOOD DRIVE <br />Official Rose reviewed the proposal for the property located on Greenwood <br />Drive north of County Road I. The applicant was previously before the City <br />for a major subdivision into 10 lots. The Planning Commission had approved <br />the subdivision and sent to the Council. The applicant withdrew his request. <br />He is now requesting subdivision of just one lot. The zone is single family <br />(R -1), sewer and water are available at the street, and the lot size meets <br />code requirements. The area is served by storm sewer but is inadequate <br />for three -year storm and standing water has occurred in heavy rains. A <br />catch basin is located south of the property. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth questioned whether the applicant was trying to avoid <br />the drainage requirements of Resolution #983 by going to a minor subdivision. <br />Mr. Villella stated this was not true, that the reasons were the present <br />market conditions and the costs involved to develop. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth questioned how he planned to control the runoff on <br />the property. Mr. Villella indicated his situation was the same as other <br />neighboring residents and he had no specific plans. Mayor McCarty stated, <br />according to City ordinances, they had the right to require it. <br />Mayor McCarty stated the Council wanted to cooperate but it was his feeling <br />Mr. Villella is attempting to vent the requirements. He further stated he felt <br />the subdivision should be developed as a major. Mr. Villella stated he held a Purchase <br />Agreement only on Lot #19. Councilmember Ziebarth stated that even if it wasn't a major <br />subdivision, the developer should still have control of the runoff. <br />Mr. Villella stated that his lot #19 is similar in contour as that of lot #46 <br />across the street and he should be allowed to develop his lot in a similar <br />manner. He stated he feels it is unfair of the City to make the developer <br />improve the storm sewer in the area and he intends to improve the property <br />without it. Mayor McCarty stated the lack of drainage control on his land <br />could adversely affect the neighboring lots. <br />Mr. Villella, referring to the time of his original request for major sub- <br />division, stated he had wasted time and money in the process, and felt the <br />Council was fighting him. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.