Laserfiche WebLink
53 <br />May 4, 1987 <br />and handling of the wetlands in that area, meet with the approval of the RCWD and <br />the DNR. We have requested that the City Engineer be present at this meeting to <br />review the feasibility report with the Council. <br />When considering how this matter has been handled by the city to date, it would <br />appear that the appropriate steps to move this project forward would be as follows: <br />1. Accept the feasibility report as prepared. <br />2. Require that the developers comply with the recommendations in the report. <br />3. A preliminary plat be prepared by the developers complying with the engineering <br />report, and said plat be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review. <br />4. The staff be directed to prepare a preliminary development agreement for this project <br />5. The City Council decide on whether or not it will be picking up any of the over - <br />sizing costs to extend utilities to the site for ultimately serving areas <br />beyond this site. <br />6. The stormwater runoff issues and concerns be addressed with the use of holding <br />ponds and existing ditches subject to the approval of the RCWD, the DNR, and <br />the city engineer. <br />7. The acceptance of parkland dedication or a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. <br />Engineer Kuusisto reviewed his feasibility with the Council, with Mr. John Johnson <br />of Merila and Associates present representing Harstad Companies. The estimated <br />cost of the project would be $572,000.00, with the cleaning of ditches and its <br />effect on adjoining property owners not addressed. Councilman Vail inquired about <br />access to County Road 8A, and Mr. Johnson stated that they are willing to comply <br />with any county requirements. Engineer Kuusisto stated that he would like to have <br />the roads within the development remain gravel until the project is near completion <br />then at that time blacktop the roads. It was stated that the previous City Council <br />opted for acquisition of parkland rather than the parkland fee. Mayor Atkinson <br />stated that it was his personal opinion that he was not sure the city needed that <br />swampland and a fee would be better used. After a verbal discussion, it was deter- <br />mined that the majority of the Council would accept parkland and money for park <br />improvements. <br />Motion made by Atkinson, Peltier seconded, that the City Council accepts the feasibility <br />study as prepared by Howard Kuusisto. Harstad Companies shall obtain preliminary <br />plat approval from the Planning Commission, and work with city staff for preparation <br />of the Development Agreement. <br />After submission of this motion, Councilmember Peltier <br />receive water in her backyard from this development. <br />this development will retain runoff from this project <br />water problem prior to the development, it will not be <br />the development. <br />VOTING AYE: Potts, Olson, Vail, Atkinson <br />VOTING NAY: Peltier <br />Motion Carried. <br />asked is she was going to <br />Engineer Kuusisto stated that <br />on site, and if there was a <br />intensified as a result of <br />7.B Proposed Amendment to Mining and Excavating Ordinance <br />At the April 6, 1987 regular meeting of the Hugo City Council, Mrs. Ann Munthe <br />presented the Council with a petition from Hugo residents requesting an amendment <br />to the city's mining ordinance, Chapter 170. The petition was signed by a large <br />