2000-02-01 P & Z - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l~" .. drainage, so Mr. W1Ibarber's drainage will not be affected. Mr. Carlson indicated whatever needs to be done will be completed and assured that Mr. Wtlharber's drainage will not be affected. Ken Vanderbeek resides at 6892 Centerville Road and stated he will need to be part of the feasibility study, and he will most likely be required to hook up to City sewer and water. Mr. Vanderbeek would like to know what it will cost him as a property owner, since his house is so far back from the road (150 ft). The commission felt it was important from a planning viewpoint to know what the development will cost to residents around the area. Tom W1lharber of6849 Centerville Road questioned the actual depth of the pond in the development. Mr. Carlson stated there is a normal pond elevation of 899 with a 100 year pond elevation of901, the contours in the backyard are about four or five feet deep with varying depth and contours. Mayor W1lharber indicated the Planning and Zoning Commission would nonnally recommend to City Council that a feasibilitly study be completed, resulting in the Council granting or denying the approval. However, Mr. Carlson stated he would pay for the feasibility study, which the council should be aware of. Motion bv A. LaMotte seconded bv R. DeVine to dose the DubUc hearinl!. Motion carried unanimouslv. Motion bv D. KiliJlln. seconded bv R. DeVine to submit to em CounciL aDDroval of the Dreliminarv Dlat rezone reauest continent UDOn Mr. Carlson's resolution of the Ciw Enmneer's concerns. the em BuRdinl! Official's concerns. aIonl! with the set- back issue on Centerville Road and orovide a cost estimatelfeasibDitv studv to the Cm at his exoense. Mr. Carlson is in addition reauired to attain the Rice Creek Watenhed oermit and all other aoorooriate oennits. Motion earried unanimouslv. Mr. Carlson stated when the feasibility study is completed, the affected residents will be very concerned about their potion of the cost. Mr. Carlson requested Council to breakdown the feasibility study to address the individual costs to the property owners. Council Member Vickers stated the Commission is currently looking at revising the accessory building size, and is trying to determine a percentage to use. It appears the pole building being discussed would be allowed on that size lot with the revision. Keeping that thought in mind, the commission feels they will need to grant the variance because the revision will probably will not be in effect before this subdivision is approved. NEW BUSINESS - MET COUNCIL LOT SPLIT This item was recognized by the commission, but no action was needed or required of the Commission at this time. "1