Laserfiche WebLink
10 April 2006 <br />Public Hearing No. C2006-01 <br />KIMBERLY ANDERSON UZPEN <br />Her property is clay on north half and sand on south half. Is degradationof road more likely with sand or clay and <br />do you do different things for each soil type? Mitchell - clay contributes more to degradationassandfilters water <br />away and remains stable. Mitchell -plans detail handling sand vs. clay. <br />Will run offbe directed to the pond on her property? Mitchell -No. <br />Requested a straw poll on water and sewer. <br />SHERREN HEIL <br />Is therean estimate of when mandated sewer and water might be implemented by a bodyother than Gem Lake? <br />Erneott-No. <br />KEN KIRCHOFF <br />Is extremely fond. of Gem Lake's rural character and believes that installation of sewer and water might provide a <br />platform forfuture owners to intensify land use damaging character of Gem Lake and therefore opposes sewer and <br />water installation at this time. <br />Can we install speed bumps? Magnuson -yes, although they raise problems with snow plowing.. <br />RC)LLIE BIRK)BAK <br />Can we legislate no sewer and water in this area? Magnuson -probably not. <br />Discussion of regrinding and recycling roadway materials with Mitchell. <br />ROBERT UZPEN <br />Their water is excellent and sees no benefit to them, especially considering the additional costs of piping sewer and <br />water across their large lot adding substantially to the overall costs. <br />TIM HEIL <br />13o we invite mandates to complete if we lay pipes now? No answer. <br />CRAIG RAFFERTY <br />Favors minimum work now until all plans are complete. <br />Comments by the City Council were as follows: <br />HUTCH SCHILLING <br />Following discussion on mandated sewer and water by the Metropolitan Council, Mr. Schilling noted he was aware <br />of'a western suburb near Lake Minnetonka whose mandatedcosts were l4 times what they might have been with a <br />plan.. <br />CI -MCI( WATSON <br />"Timing and inconvenience to residents? Mitchell-3/4 weeks. <br />How dowecontrol costs orwe find more:subsurfaee:problems-adequately provided for in feasibility study. <br />TOM RASMUSSEN <br />Pleased to hear residents supporting rural atmosphere in our community. <br />PAUL EMEOTT <br />Postponing pipe installation could damage mature plantings in the neighborhood although directional boring could <br />be employed al additional costs. <br />Mayor Emeott then conducted a straw poll of the 13 properties represented: <br />1) Those in favor of city sewer proposal 00 Ave, 13 Nay, 00 Abstain <br />2) Those. in Favor of city water proposal 01 Aye, 12 Nay, 00 Abstain <br />3) Those in favor of patch and overlay proposal 11 Aye, 01 Nay, 01 Abstain <br />4) Those in favor of complete reconstruction proposal 01 Aye, 1 t Nay, 01 Abstain <br />Clerk Magnuson then indicated that since Big Fox and Little Pox were only a portion of the proposed project with <br />the portion devoted to I-iaven Lane and Tessier Road to be discussed Wednesday, 12 April 2006, it would be appropriate <br />for the City Counci1 to delay action to it'sregular meetingonMonday, 17. April 2006. Mayor Emeott agreed and ordered <br />the matter held over for action to Monday, 17 April 2006. <br />