04/28/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Mr. Dunlap, who owns one lot, will:also be representing Mr. Quinn, who ? owna two lots: City Engineer Schaller explained that these are two separate proposals; Mr..Quinn's easement was previously shown on the drawing for the lot split (Mr. 'Dunlap's easement was also on that plan) and now Mr. Dunlap's plat shows his easement separately on his plat; and they are both requesting that the city accept`the maintenance of the sewers after construction. It was'explained that normally these sewer lines are in the right-of-way, however, after Hastings Road was relocated for the construction of 1480, no provision was made for the sewers. Mr. Schaller advised that the sewers would be instal- led according to code and inspected by his department and there should be no problem with them. Proposal was explained to adjacent propertyo uwners: Mrs. Beebe, Mr. and Mrs. Sweet, and Mr. Johansen. Mrs. Beebe questioned if she could tap into the sewer in order to develop her vacant property. To do this the easement would_have to be extended to her property. Assistant Law Director Dubelko believes that all four lots should be serviced by this easement, however,Mrs, Beebe stated she would not be able to share in tfie cost of the construction. If the easement. only, is granted to her property line, Mr. Dubelko is concerned that the owners of the lot could, at a later date, charge an inflated fee for using the easement and stated that one'tot should not be sewer locked since it could cause the city problems at a later date. Mrs. Beebe believes that the city was at fault for not foreing the state to construct sewers when they relocated the roadway. Mr. Dunlap is unwilling to construct the sewer all the way to Mrs. Beebe's property line so that she could tap into them at a fraction of the cost of the sewer. Mr. Dunlap offered to buy the lot as it is, but she has no desire to either sell the lot to him, or to share the cost of the sewer and sell after the ? lot is improved. Since no agreement could be reached, Mr. Dunlap stated that they would withdraw this request and construct and then maintain the sewer privately. Mr. Sweet then requested that the easement be moved 10 feet east in order to save the two rows of maple trees (one row of trees is on Mr. Quinnts property). Mr. Dtm lap stated that this would be an added expense, and after measuring the easement, he does not believe that the trees will be harmed. The proposal was withdrawn. 3) Bradley Oaks Sub division Improvement Plans The plans are for the construction of sub division improvements as required in the Bradley Oaks Subdivision. The final plat was reviewed and approved by Planning Commission on April 14, 1987. City Engineer Schaller presented the improvements plans for the retention system and sanitary sewer lines. Mr. Andreano, engineer, represented the developer. Proposal was explained to property owners in the area: T. Passig, J. Dee, J. Grant, T. Zawistowski, Mr. and Mrs.. Holmgren,.C..tlnnost, and A. Nenadal who expressed many concerns: doubted that creek could contain additional water from subdivision run-off pointing out that Timber Trails Subdivision and Barton Woods CondQmi:nium all empty into same ditch;;ditches and creeks are not cleaned prop.erly or regularly; creek has at times been_ up to a foot of the top of the bank; some basements'in area become flooded now; much water in that area does not g,et to the ditch, just stays on property; . since this -subdivision will be elevated, the water will overflov to the adjacent properties; possibility of ditch eroding; questioned how it.is ? determined that a retention:svstem can contain enough water; questioned size and depth of sewers; after develovment is constructed, will sewe.r systems be checked to see 3.f adequate and woaking; questioned hoia developer can:get