03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposed plan involves cutting the grass, removing sediment, removing debris, and inspecting (now that it's a proposed filtration basin there should be additional maintenance steps); the homeowner would be responsible for it with the current plans and would be required to do the work. (one would assume) Who will be ensuring their they are maintained, safe (there are lots of very young children in the area - including my pair of 2 year olds and the potential neighbors 2 and 4 year olds), don't stagnate and turn into mosquito nests, and remain effective? There are no comments in the plans about ensuring the swales, catchment basin, and under-driveway piping is maintained. Who foots the bill when they fail? (particularly concerning given these are filtration, not infiltration basins due to the lack of space, closeness to wetland, and soil for the lower-maintenance infiltration style) A cost study by Barr Engineering seems to show the average cost (in 2010 dollars) of basins that covers a commensurate amount of land in St. Paul is around 30k-50k. That seems like an amount higher than we could expect a single homeowner to cover quickly in the event of a freak storm. These are not cheaply created, not cheaply repaired, and the PCA/USEPA and Weiss study on costs effectively says that one can expect to pay 5-12%[10] of the construction costs per year when amortized... It's worth noting that the cost survey index seems to show these basins are almost exclusively owned and run by cities/counties or large organizations like universities. With the owner moving and the applicant not being from the city, I'm concerned this won't be well done in the out years and the city will be stuck with a bill and/or the wetland will be damaged. Property Sizes: Previous attempts to split lots in this area have resulted in comments about density[2][7] as well as being less willing to split "when there is currently reasonable use of the property."... which there certainly is. In 2006 [7] a development with 3695 and 3685 New Brighton Road was proposed with less density (it included the same total number of houses, but included 3695 New Brighton Road as well) and there were significant concerns about it - many are the same now, but worse. The future use plan labels this area "low density residential". As platted with drainage, easements, and wetland, it will/could be 3 houses, all 15 feet from each other. That's not low density and certainly doesn't fit with the neighborhood - where, during summer, people can barely see neighboring homes from their back yards. These lots are extremely skinny - lot 2 is functionally 66 feet wide. It flares at the road by way of including the easement to meet the minimum road width rules. It's only actually 31 feet wide at the road if you remove the lift station easement. Lot 2 isn't much wider in the back and has even less functional road frontage if you take out the wetland (with only a couple feet of unencumbered land abutting the road isn't easement of some sort - lot 2's driveway runs right through the city lift station easement). The fact the original property is being squeezed so much that they have to 1) move their driveway, 2) change the orientation of their home so it fronts Thom drive, and 3) still rip off a deck to meet minimum side setbacks[1] speaks to this overdevelopment. These three properties will average .6 acres - with the smallest two are under half an acre and the biggest being largely made up of wetland and need-to-be-constructed retaining ponds. [3] The smallest lot includes the proposed, smaller, lift station easement and is still 45% easement by land area (leaving less-than-R2-lot-size-minimum about 10.5k sqft buildable land, in two sections) and lot 1 is being 74% easement or wetland (or 11.3k sqft of buildable land, split into 3 sections). This is compared to the average property size on New Brighton Road from near the corner of E2 ot the train tracks is 1.32 acres.. all but 3 larger than .9 acres (and those are .62,.69 and .81 acres). If you include adjacent properties on Thom adjacent to property the average is 1.25 acres. Lot 2 and 3 would set the new standard for smallest properties on NBR by a large margin and be less than 1/3 the size of the average property. While they fit the R-2 minimums, they are too cramped for the area, don't fit in at all, and the myriad of issues uncovered in this email are directly due to the overdevelopment of this parcel. The planning commission has historically cared about keeping lots similar in size and has felt that cramming houses in is not in the best interests for the city. Denied case PC 07 005, also involving Richard Kotoski, involved creating lots roughly the size we are talking about by splitting 2015 Thom Dr.... which has adjacent properties much smaller than 3685 does. With the denial of that case, specifically, the commission stated that "Density was