HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000049_pg055February 26, 1979 Page 3
Official Rose explained that the reason for allowing the 160' splits
was because when the City put sewer and water in, they allowed the
citizens to divide those lots to help pay for the assessments. He
added that Staff would recommend resurrecting the old ordinance to
keep in the spirit that was originally set.
Official Rose reported that water and sewer is stubbed to the property
lines for lots 1 -4, water is stubbed to lot 5, with water service being
available in the street, lot 7 already has services, and lots 6, 8, 9
and 10 have sewer and water service available in the street. Limited
storm sewer service is available on Greenwood Drive, but the present
system does not meet a 3 -year storm frequency capacity and the area
has experienced problems with drainage. Official Rose added that the
easements are adequate for the development.
Official Rose recommended that if the development is approved, the City
should require that all the lots drain to the street, basements below
907 elevation be required to be drain - tiled, and that bonding of $500
per single family lot and $1,000 per duplex lot be required.
Official Rose reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed the
plat and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and also recommended
that a drainage study be ordered for the project. He added that Staff
would recommend that the Council authorize Staff to charge an additional
fee of $2,500 to cover a drainage study. He explained that the cost
could be assessed to the project but that the City has a policy of
having the developer front -end the costs.
Official Rose reported that it had come to Staff's attention that the
developer had started filling lots 2 and 3, without a permit, and that
two or three loads of fill had been put in and some grading had been
done. He added that Staff had notified the developer that a fill permit
was required and it most likely would not be granted until the plat was
approved and that no further fill could be brought in. Official Rose
reported that it was Staff's opinion that the fill had not changed the
grade of the land detrimentally.
Mayor McCarty asked if copies of the plat had been sent to the proper
authorities, such as Rice Creek Water Shed District and the County.
Official Rose replied that they had and that he had also sent copies to
the attorney and engineering firm. He added that the reply the City had
received was the standard form letter that they have received before.
Mayor McCarty asked what was being done under 42.05, Subdivision 2, section
5. Attorney Meyers replied that the Council should have information
that would clarify the soil and drainage conditions for the site. He
added that the Council is aware of the drainage problems in the area and
should act accordingly. Official Rose added that Staff has recommended
a study be done at the expense of the developer to determine the best
course of action.
Mayor McCarty asked if the costs of the project had been covered, under
42.06. Official Rose replied that they had been covered as the developer
had already paid $660 in costs and that Staff had requested an extra
$2500 be required to pay for a drainage study.