03-25-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

h. - » LINDGUIST <S VE^J^4UM Crcno City Ccuncil Decarjer 7, 1990 Paae 2 \7han tha Cu££s hsQ Lot 17 gradad to install a detachad gairaga, thay graded it so that the water could nova around their garage site, thus retaining the natural drainage as the law requires. The grading was intended to maintain the natural swale and natural flow of water, but around their garage site so that Lot 17 would be more usable to them. Lot 17 is of substantial benefit to the Cuffs in t.hat they are one of t.he few families in the area who own only one lot and it is nearly impossible to fi^ a garage on only their one lot since the lots are only 50 i-eeu wide. With regard to t.he Cuffs' petition whic.h is for the purpose or placing the drainage in a different, underground location on Lot 17 as distinct from the City of Orcno's interest in drainage on this lot which I will address later, several things need to be gaid. First, as has been stated above, when the Cuffs graded Lot ^7 tjja natural swale was maintained. Subsequent to that, they failed to maintain t.he new grading in a proper fashion by proper seeding and planting. That failure resulted in erosion closing off the natural drainage. As a natter of Minnesota law, they are obligated to rectify their present lot contour by regrading it to remove the earth so* t.hat the water may flow across the lot as t.he water always has. There is and always has been an adequate method of getting water over and across this lot, namely via the natural swale or even as the natural swale may be moved slightly away from the Cuff's garage site by grading. There is no necessity of an undergrouna pipe with regard to protection of vhe cuffs' interest. As you know from your meeting in October 1990, Tom Barrett, '/<pur city attorney, informed you t.hat t.he signatories to the petition are not bound by the petition until final action is taken by the ^ City of Orono. As you can see from the affidavits attached, 4 or the 12 people who originally signed the Cuffs' petition did so being improperly informed as to the facts by the Cuffs. Those people have now withdrawn their signatures from the Cuffs petition and have added their signatures to the petition of those affected landowners who oppose this improvement project. There are 2 other affidavits supporting the fact that 2 other signatures on the cuffs' Petition may be invalid. ilfJiieillP''