My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.3. SR 10-25-1993
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1993
>
10/25/1993
>
4.3. SR 10-25-1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:36:20 AM
Creation date
6/28/2006 4:08:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
10/25/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />OCT-21-93 THU 8:27 <br /> <br />MSA CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> <br />FAX NO. 6126449446 <br /> <br />P. 03/03 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Ach <br />October 20, 1993 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />I understand that Mr. Foster is now proposing that the additional lots approved in the <br />preliminary plat of Cherryhill Bluffs 2nd Addition that were not platted in the final platting <br />process be traded for the platting of Hillside Estates 2nd Addition. I have three concerns <br />with this proposal. They are as follows: <br /> <br />1. I question whether or not the City has the right to reject the final plat on the <br />remaining lots within the Cherryhill Bluffs 2nd Addition since a preliminary plat has <br />been approved on that entire subdivision. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />The one big difference between providing sanitary sewer capacity to Cherryhill Bluffs <br />2nd Addition vs. Hillside Estates 2nd Addition is that the former will always flow <br />southerly through the existing sanitary sewer whereas the latter is intended to flow <br />westerly under TH 169 and ultimately to the interceptor sewer south of School Street. <br />By allowing Hillside Estates 2nd Addition into the sewer that is existing in the area <br />you are creating another temporary connection. These temporary connections have <br />a tendency to become more permanent in nature. The more lots that are connected <br />temporarily, the less incentive there is to ultimately provide the extension of trunk <br />sanitary sewer to serve this entire area. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />3. The third issue is a question of how best to allocate available capacity. Is it proper <br />to allow Hillside Estates 2nd Addition to be temporarily connected to the existing <br />sewer to the south when the proposal for a SuperAmerica was recently rejected due <br />to the fact that sewer was not available? The proposed SuperAmerica could also have <br />been temporarily connected to the existing sanitary sewer. <br /> <br />I hope this summary of the recent events relative to sanitary sewer capacity is helpful in your <br />consideration of the proposed plat. If you have any questions or need additional information <br />from me, please call. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> <br />TSZ!~ <br /> <br />TJM:ds <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />I 99-201 8.0CT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.