Laserfiche WebLink
February 12, 1979 Page 3 <br />Mayor McCarty presented a placque to the Sno- Mounties Club and thanked <br />them for all they had done for Mounds View. <br />Mayor McCarty recessed the regular meeting and opened the public hearing <br />for Dailey Knolls. <br />PUBLIC HEARING - DAILEY KNOLLS <br />Acting Administrator Anderson reported that the request was originally <br />submitted on November 9, 1977 and has since been before the Planning <br />Commission several times and before the Council once. <br />Councilmember Rowley added that Council had directed the developer and <br />property owners in the area to determine on their own how to put in <br />services. <br />Margaret Kramer, 7663 Groveland Road stated that she was objecting to <br />the plat because she wanted all services to be put in together. She <br />added that at one time five of the seven property owners had been <br />interested in having services put in, but two were against it and the <br />Council had then directed them to put in their own services if they <br />planned to develop. <br />Mayor McCarty explained to Mrs. Kramer that the required 35% petition <br />was only to insure a public hearing on the matter, not to have the <br />project put in. <br />Jim Celt, 2700 West 106th stated that he owned the east half of Lot 4. <br />He stated that with Project 1978 -6, it was proposed to bring the ser- <br />vices in but it was determined through study that Lots 5, 6 and 7 <br />were not buildable. He added that Dailey Knolls has since bought Lot 7. <br />Attorney Meyers explained that the Council was concerned with the hearing <br />under the ordinance regarding preliminary plats, and that they were now <br />at a stage with a petition from a property owner to subdivide his property. <br />The Council had told him to get more land to bring the lots up to code, <br />which the owner has done, and now the Council must consider the public <br />health, safety and welfare with this request. He added that setting a <br />public improvement hearing would be beyond the scope of the hearing <br />that was now going on and also added that 35% of the property owners <br />would have to petition for an improvement hearing. <br />Leonard Kramer stated he was representing his parents. He added that <br />Staff had presented a report on March 13 recommending the utilities be <br />placed along Silver Lake Road. Attorney Meyers replied that the issue <br />of utilities was discussed at the public hearing and one of the main <br />issues was the cost, as it would be very expensive to put services in <br />along Silver Lake Road for all the lots as some were not buildable, <br />and that cost would have to be paid for some way along the line. <br />Mr. Kramer stated that Twin City Testing had tested the lots during the <br />summer and determined that Lots 5, 6 and 7 would require additional <br />work and money but they could be prepared for building on. <br />