07-08-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 24, 1996 (#9 - #2107 John O'Sullivan - Continued) Hurr questioned how the City could approve a drainage easement allowing runoff to drain to a neighboring property. She also asked that any cost in realignment be paid by the applicant Hurr cited an e.xample of the easement to Lafayette Ridge neighborhood but noting it still was owned by the association This drainage in question would travel to property not owned by the City or the applicant Jabbour asked if the City did not own the w etland area at Lafay ette Ridge Mabusth said the land was in tax forfeiture but was working with the association to regain the property. The Citv has an easement over that wetland area. Barrett opined that the law allow s runoff to travel dowiihill onto property owned by others. Callahan added that any runoff w ould have traveled naturally downhill due to the topography of the area Jabbour agreed that even on the existing blacktop, the runoff' travels the way of the proposed drainage easement and was of the opinion that a drainage easement was not necessary. When asked why the drainage easement was needed, O'Sullivan responded that he was in favor of having the runoff'travel its natural course He noted the compliance of the holding pond requirement to move drainage from his property to the church property’. O'Sullivan said their loan was set for ciosing on 1 hursday, June 27, and the title company was requiring the easement, permission from the City was not to the title company's satisfaction. Callahan noted there was a drainage easement to the retention pond. Mabusth said that was required as the City w'anied the runoff treated before it entered the wetland. Jabbour commented that as part of the vacation, the pond was required. Both sides of the street were vacated and now there is this current request. O'Sullivan said it was not his suggestion to construct the retention pond but a requirement of the City. He noted the escalation of the cost due to the retention pond. Callahan clarified the issues noting the drainage easement required for runoff to travel to the pond, and the question by Hurr regarding runoff traveling over private property. Mabusth responded that ail of the runoff now goes to the w etland, and the pond will create a better situation with treatment of the runoff prior to entering the wetland area. Mabusth also noted the treatment of the runoff is required by code. Barrett said the granting of the easement is a reasonable use of property upstream, and the applicant's method is reasonable. Hurr asked that it is then okay that anyone uphill can have water run downhill Barrett said that is how the property law' is written in Minnesota.