Agenda Packets - 2004/01/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mr. Harstad indicated they would be utilizing the existing curb stops that are there and there 1 would be two extra curb stops that would be capped. There is sewer and water on Silver Lake 2 Road on the other side so they would have to bore under Silver Lake Road and bring it across. It 3 becomes complex as there is no curb or storm sewer along Longview. There is curb but it goes 4 to an open ditch, which is unusual in today’s age. He then said that the same is true for the 5 sidewalk, because it should be right along Silver Lake Road but the County chose to dig the ditch 6 so it creates obstacles to be worked through with the County. 7 8 Mr. Harstad indicated that there would be significant tree loss on the property but assured 9 residents that he would maintain whatever trees possible as it adds value to the project to leave 10 them. 11 12 Dallas Thompson of 5178 Longview Drive indicated that this plan would be a massive change to 13 the area and that concerns him. He then asked Council who his lawyer should contact should he 14 develop water problems in his home after the homes are built on the wetland. He further 15 commented that he has no water issues now and does not want any after the homes are built 16 there. 17 18 Mayor Linke indicated that the developer is required to follow specific criteria from the City, the 19 County, and Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure that the adjoining properties are not 20 negatively impacted. He further indicated that the water cannot flow off of this property and onto 21 adjacent properties. 22 23 Council Member Stigney asked if it is possible to state something in the development agreement 24 that Mr. Harstad has a responsibility for any water damage caused to adjoining properties 25 attributed to this development. 26 27 Director Ericson indicated the City usually requires a performance bond but the difficult thing 28 would be proving responsibility for someone’s water issue. He then said that if someone incurs 29 damage that can be directly attributed to the development the developer could be held responsible 30 but if there is some 100 year event that happens to everyone and they all have water it would be 31 difficult to prove that the water damage is directly attributable to the developer building those 32 homes. 33 34 Director Ericson indicated that the bonding could be drafted to be extended a couple of years to 35 account for any potential issues but residents would still need to prove that the water was caused 36 by the development. He then said that the hydrology analysis and Rice Creek Watershed District 37 will dictate the requirements necessary to resolve any drainage issues with the site. 38 39 Barbara Koziak of 5173 Red Oak Drive indicated she has lived at her home since 1973 and, at 40 the time they purchased the property, they were told the area was a protected wetland that would 41 not be built on. She then commented that the area is a very nice wildlife wetland area that should 42 be protected. She further commented that the bonding for any damages does not help her 43 because she does not want the damage in the first place. 44 45