Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Gamec requested clarification that the developer would need to meet all State and MPCA <br />criteria if this subdivision were to be approved. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon responded in the affirmative. He explained the <br />Council is not approving a subdivision tonight; findings of fact in the affirmative would give the <br />applicant the ability to apply for the subdivision again. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated he agrees with Councilmember Elvig. He explained one of his <br />concerns has been the homeowners association, and the communal septic and fees that go along <br />with that. He is an advocate for having the septic system professionally run and managed <br />properly, and all of the details need to be ironed out. These issues need to be addressed prior to <br />moving any of these developments forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated the City may need to have stopgap measures in place to cover <br />possible costs from a situation like what has occurred in Oak Grove. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec indicated it should be the developer's responsibility to know the costs; the City's <br />responsibility is to be certain that the rules are enforced. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated the question is whether the City has placed this developer in a <br />hardship by this moratorium in the consideration of where he was in the process and what he has <br />gone forward to do. He believes the City has done this. He asked staff to research what <br />happened with this development, and the following information was found. During the first <br />work session with the sketch plan the Council was against the long cul-de-sac and asked the <br />developer to look into this further. A few months later the developer came back in a work <br />session where the Council said they understand the difficulties in this area, and that this cul-de- <br />sac is short-term because of the land adjacent to this. The Council indicated they would like the <br />developer to go forward, but research what it would take to get the land. When this came back <br />again for preliminary plat approval, the Council stated they were against this development <br />because of the cul-de-sac; this was after giving information that they would be amenable to the <br />cul-de-sac if the adjacent land is not purchased. Councilmember Cook stated this developer has <br />put all this time into this development; it is a good project, and even though the developer has the <br />land to go through, the Council is holding them to the moratorium. He believes the preliminary <br />plat should have been passed before the moratorium. The developer has done everything the <br />City has asked them to do, and he thinks the Council is putting itself in a rough situation not to <br />move this project forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson commented if this land were to be developed at the current zoning <br />without a cluster development they could include more houses with single family septic systems <br />than with the cluster development; there would be the same emission out of the septic system <br />with more single family homes. With the cluster development there will be a communal septic <br />system with a limited number of houses and a lot more open space. He believes it defeats the <br />purpose by going back to the current zoning. <br /> <br />City Council! August 22, 2006 <br />Page 6 of 18 <br />