1976.02.11 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-4 - file, a plan for the remainder of the 91 acres not included in Valley View Second Addition. Before allowing a rezoning, we must know what the planned development for the entire parcel will be. (It was noted that the City Attorney, Engineer and Washington County Planner do have such copies on file.) Such a copy should be submitted to the Planning Commission post haste. Spitzer said there is a question regarding the access roads along South side of Egg Lake Road. The Washington County Planning Department is being requested to obtain a written recommendation from the Washington County Highway Department before we will proceed, and there is a question of soil borings in Block One. Mr. Ziebel doesn't feel they meet the re- quirements for SFE and Planning Commission recommends Tschida meet with Ziebel to work this out . Asked Tschida if he is prepared to make an escrow deposit of $400,000 if the plan is approved. Tschida was also told to oonisder that the City may Insist on concrete curb and gutter. Tschida said the location of the 15" line is very important regard- ing the staging of the program. Spitzer said the Planning Commission and City Council would meet soon to formulate a joint resolution re- garding this matter. Spitzer saiq- :they have not yet provided an alter- nate plan for the park program if the city doesn't accept the park plan. Tschida agreed to furnish. Peltier asked if 138th Street will ever be extended to Goodview and will the people living to the South of the drainage ditch be assessed to help pay for it? Meyer said it is a permanent cul de sac and there would be no assessment; the cost for enlarging will be borne by Grace Develop - m ent . Peltier inquired why Tschida hasn1t applied for variance for lots that aren't minimum lot size? Spitzer said if the plat is accepted, and there are undersized lots, these lots are automatically accepted. Tschida said that some of the lot sizes have been changed and now conform. He was told to bring his application up to date. Spitzer asked Meyer to estimate what the flaw rate hitting the cul- vert on Egg Lake Road would be and Meyer said it would not be increased over what the 100 year flood is. Peloquin feels Lots 1-5 are too low for on site sewage systems, should be serviced by Sanitary Sewer and feels the project is too large for our small ommmunity and should be programmed in small segments, over possibly, a ten year period. Ehret asked if Valley View 1st Addition could be replatted as part of Valley View 2nd Addition to get rid of some of the driveways. Tgchida said he had met with Schwab and felt they had worked out this problem satisfactorily. He feels an easement should fulftll their needs. Meyer said they have considered replatting but have not been able to find a destreable solution. Spitzer said the Planning Commission is extremely interested in the staging of the development, which will depend on the staging of the sewer, how financing will be handled, where the walk- outs will be built and is interested in recommendation regarding County road access from County Engineer. Motion made by Peltier, seconded by Peloquin, to table the matter until the March 10, 1976 meeting. All voted aye. Motion carried. Eugene Peltier Eugene Peltier presented necessary exhibits prior to hearing sched- uled for February 25th. Everything in order. Washington County Planning Department requested to have a report ready for hearing. Neil Peltier Neil Peltier appeared with engineerin report. Motion made by Peloquin, seconded by Gret, that the Planning