My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1982/11/08
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
Agenda Packets - 1982/11/08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 9:37:07 AM
Creation date
3/13/2025 9:37:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/8/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
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
CASE 89-81 <br />I'age 3 <br />CPublic Improvements and Services: <br />1) This plan .is i.dcntical to the one submitted in May of 1981 <br />for review by the Planning Commission on June 3, 1981. <br />Pan 0oxrud of :Ihorl.-Iilli.otl-Ilendrickson reviewed the <br />('evelopment• at that- time (a copy of: his report dated May <br />29, 19111, is aLLached). <br />2) The requiremenL•s of Resolution No. 983 have been met. <br />3) Sanitary sewer service is adequate. <br />4) The developer is proposing the installation of a watermain <br />to connect to the existing main on Spring Lake Road. Utility <br />easements would need to be acquired to cross to Spring Lake <br />Road. Tile location of this proposed watermain will, as pro- <br />posed by the developer., cross the property to the west not <br />on a lot line but approximately 100 feet north of its south <br />lot line (Lot 27). This lot and the lots west of it are iq <br />Spring Lake Park. <br />5) No drainage easements are shown on the property. <br />C6) The Fire Chief has reviewed this development previously and with the exception of the width of the emergency only access <br />being too narrow (24 foot wide improved area), the plan meets <br />with his approval. <br />Access: <br />1) The issue was brought up in previous meetings that the <br />properties to the west of this development may want to sub- <br />divide off the back of their lots in the future. <br />2) Should the property to the east decide to develop, right-of- <br />way for a frontage road should be required so that an addi- <br />tional curb cut onto highway 10 be avoided. <br />C <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.