Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />" May 9, 1983 <br />Page three <br /> <br />Christoffersen recommended that additional ponding be provided in <br />the low area, equivalent be above elevation 898 which is one foot <br />above the invert elevation of the 12" outlet pipe. <br /> <br />Christoffersen explained that a 6" rain in a 24 hour period is <br />considered a 100-year storm; results in only 4.1u of run-off. In <br />discussion, it was noted that the project does not provide for <br />much of a safety factor. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Council was referred to the City Code, Subdivision requirement <br />(Section 22-12 (2) f.)U -- no structure or active facility shall <br />be placed in such a ma,nner that it will be subject to flooding." <br />It was noted that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as <br />"wetland", and containa a policy which states that alteration of <br />wetlands shall be minimized, It was noted that the City has, in <br />the paat, limited wetland alteration to minimal filling required <br />to enlarge or improve identifiable building sites. Miller noted <br />that almoat no high land for building sites exists on this site; <br />all building sites must be entirely created within the marah area, <br />which would not be consiatent with past City decisions regarding <br />filling. Woodburn noted that his field investigation indicated <br />higher water levels than noted in the engineer's report. <br />Chriatianaen moved, aeconded by Mulcahy. that Council deny a <br />Special Uae Permit for the proposed excavation and fill of Lot 1, <br />Block 1, Valentine Hills because: <br /> <br />1. Proposed alteration of this defined "wetlandu ~a <br />inconsistent with City policy regarding wetland <br />alteration. <br /> <br />2. The aubject property ia a natural lowland for the <br />aurrounding watershed, and contains almoat no <br />land identifiable as building sites; all propoaed <br />sites must be entirely created within the marsh <br />area. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously (S~O). <br /> <br />Case No. 83-SMinor Subdivision - Pro ert at Hamline Avenue <br />and Hi hwa 96 96 Ham1ine Partners Ltd.) <br />Tabled until June 13th Council meeting at request of applicent. <br /> <br />Case No. 82-1SB, Minor Subdivision - Resubdivision of Lots 16 <br />and 17, Block 3, Shady Oaks Addition (Heinrich Looa) <br />Council was referred to tranaparency of the proposed resubdivision <br />of two lots into three lots, Miller reported that the proposal <br />waa denied by Council more than six months ago; applicant is re- <br />aubmitting the proposal for reconsideration at this time. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Miller noted that the proposed panhandle lot ia not considered <br />an ideal design, but is not all evil either; noted that, in this <br />instance, the impact of the panhandle, which will become a drive- <br />way, does not adversely impact the adjacent properties, becauae <br />of the existence of a large commercial parking lot adjacent to <br />it, which has greater impact on tha residential lots. <br /> <br />Council was referred to Planning Memo o'f 4/26/83 and to Planning <br />Commission's recommendation (Minutes of S-11-83) to approve the <br />resubdivision as proposed. <br /> <br />Mr. Loos explained that the two existing lots greatly exceed the <br />stendard lot sizes in the area, and the three proposed lots exceed <br />the 14,000 square foot area requirement for the district. Loos <br />said he considers proposed Lot C a "choice lot"; noted that the <br />rear of the two lots, as platted, is virtually unusable; building <br />sites are at the front of the lots. <br /> <br />-3- <br />