10-4-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 2 CASE #89-15 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly recommended approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions attached: • 1. The City Engineer approve the engineering aspects of the division, including drainage, easements and grading. 2. The City Attorney approve the legal aspects of the division, including descriptions and filing requirements. 3. The park dedication issue be resolved by Council liaison with input from the Park Director and Park Board if deemed necessary. 4. The site grading be performed in conjunction with the construction of the home on Parcel A. 5. The minimum elevation of the site grade at the building perimeter on both lots be no lower than 975.2. The Planner referred Commission to a report from Engineer Maurer dated 9-29-89, recommending acceptance of the drainage plan. Bergly advised that when this subdivision was presented to the City for plat approval the drainage easement area was accepted as park dedication for the three lots to be created. At this time the developer is proposing to leave the easement as park dedication, however the area has been reduced; since one additional building site is being created it is appropriate to request additional park dedication. Member Zehm questioned if the City will be responsible for maintenance of the drainage easement. Bergly stated the previously approved plat for the area dedicated the easement to • the City and therefore maintenance would have been the responsibility of the City; since Rice Creek Watershed has no jurisdiction over this wetland area, it would be appropriate for the City to maintain the easement. He explained that ordinarily maintenance would be the responsibility of the property owner, however, the pond drains an area larger than this lot and affects other properties which would be rationale for the City involvement in maintenance. Member Winiecki questioned if the drainage calculations include the prospect of the other two lots being developed. Bergly advised he would refer that question to the Engineer. NOTE: Engineer Dennis Brown calculated the drainage based on fully-developed conditions. Winiecki also asked if it is the intent of the property owner to have both lots developed by the same person. She also questioned the building envelope on Lot A. Tom Wegleitner, co-applicant, advised there is no buyer for the parcels at this time, however, development by the same person would be the intent of the property owner. The Planner stated the building envelope on Lot A would be approximately 36 ft. wide, 132 ft. deep; the home would have to be oriented east/west on the lot. Tom Wegleitner requested the Commission consider attaching the first three • conditions listed in the Planner's report to the recording of the lot split and the last two conditions attached to securing the building permit. Member Martin questioned if the excavation will result in severely steep slopes close to the roadway.