Laserfiche WebLink
-5- <br /> storing trucks and other vehicles and did not see a benefit. to his <br /> property from either improvement. Another parcel is under trust <br /> ownership. and has a. residence on it at present. When Mr. Short advised <br /> Mr. Swanson the ditches in front of Central Engineering cannot be <br /> expected to accomodate the 8 CFS of flow through them from Roseville , <br /> the firm owner said he has never.. had a problem with flooding since <br /> his building was constructed in 196.6 - up until M-M built on the <br /> adjoining land and drained the .pond. Any problems which develop now <br /> will have resulted from that development. When Mr. Swanson asked <br /> what the City can -do about the problem, Mr. Soth explored the legal <br /> principles -involved, telling him "if. the runoff from the M-M property <br /> is considered-. surface water, the owner has the right to cast the <br /> water off his property as long as he does so in a .reasonable manner <br /> and St. Anthony can't prohibit the drainage into the City" . He <br /> added all litigations of this type are considered on a case by case <br /> basis. <br /> Councilman Sundland was concerned that if St. Anthony builds a roadway <br /> which is designed to accomodate only the existing traffic and Rose- <br /> ville connects to that road when they are able, the traffic on the <br /> City' s street may be increased beyond the design capacity. Mr. Swanson <br /> and Mr. Hill were strongly opposed to making any connection with <br /> Roseville if that city does not connect with the St. Anthony roadway <br /> now when MSA funds can be used for the improvement. Mr. Fornell did <br /> not believe the funding could be obtained retroactively and, if they <br /> could, foresaw that inflation would probably eat up any monetary <br /> advantages of MSA funding. When Mr. Goetsch questioned the calculations <br /> which resulted in the watershed district permitting M-M to drain the <br /> • pond, the Manager showed an aerial photograph showing the area now <br /> occupied by Central. .as ponded in 1958 which would .seem to indicate <br /> the ponds may have been, pushed over on the Roseville property when <br /> the engineering firm built there. Mr-. Swanson reiterated that he <br /> wanted Anthony Lane left "a pleasant little cul du sac" if Roseville <br /> doesn't make their connection now and said "M-M is not to be trusted <br /> since they drained that pond without permission" .. He isn't too <br /> worried about developing the storm sewer since he built his foundations <br /> a foot higher than necessary. He and Mr. Hill did not see "Roseville <br /> as being too concerned about St. Anthony" . <br /> Mr. Short told Councilman Marks the direction of the flow in the <br /> ditches cannot be reversed and digging deeper ditches would probably <br /> not be advisable "since they freeze over and won't be functioning <br /> when you need them" . He suggested St. Anthony's concerns regarding <br /> the improvements, as voiced duringthis hearing, should be clarified <br /> for Roseville and this suggestion met with the approval of those <br /> present. <br /> Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Sundland to <br /> continue the public hearing on the Anthony Lane improvements and <br /> Resolution 81-015 until the Council meeting scheduled for March 10th <br /> and to direct the City Manager and consulting .engineer to. contact <br /> Roseville officials to clarify the concerns of St. Anthony property <br /> owners regarding. the proposed improvements and to request the staff <br /> to research the conditions for obtaining MSA funding for the roadway. <br /> RESOLUTION 81-015 <br /> A RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT NO. 81-01 <br /> ANTHONY LANE NORTH IMPROVEMENTS <br />