CC 07-12-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hinutes of Regular Council Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Four REPORT OF VILLACE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER Case No. 82-12, Minor Subdivision - Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Arden Hills No.2, 1429 Skiles Lane Council was referred to Planning memo and transpsrencies of attach- ments thereto, to the recommendations of the Planning Commission (minutes of 7-7-82) and to two alternate lot surveys submitted by the applicant. Miller described the proposal to re-subdivide two existing lots on which the house exists to create two lots oriented north and south, . instead of east and west. Miller noted that Lot A (proposed for future development) provides for a substsntial builaing envelope; problem is the significant slope and drainage through the property; reported that the concern is to provide a building site which will not create a water problem for it and/or the existing house on proposed Lot B. In review of the alternate lot surveys, one orienting Lot A to Forest Lane and the other orienting Lot A to Skiles Lane, Sullivan said his preference is that the lot have access from Forest Lane, which he feels would be aesthetically more attractive for the exist- ing house. Sullivan said either would be acceptable. Sullivan said thst when the street psving was done, a culvert was installed which causes water to cross his property. Sullivan said he did experience a water problem in the 1978 heavy rain, but has not had a problem before or afterwards. Christoffersen explained that the property currently serves as a detention basin; feels some concern should be given to filling the storage area which wilL result in raising the water level higher than in 1978. Sullivan said he does not believe this would happen, but feels City should do something about the culvert. The reason for the "dog-leg" configuration was queried; also quest- ioned was smount of fill to bring the lot to the desired contour. Miller said this has not been determined; proposed grading plans were just received tonight. After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council table its action until the Planner and Engineer consider the amount of proposed fill (assuming access from Forest Lane), whether a drainsge problem will be increased by the proposal and how the proposal will impact properties downstream in the event of a 100-yaar storm. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Miller was asked to slso comment on the "dog-leg" lot line proposed. In further discussion, concern was expressed relative to effect- uation of an approved drainage plan and how City can be assured it will be followed. Some suggestions were to require owner to approve a covenant to recognize the drainage plan to be sttached to the title when property is sold, regulate property by PUD permit or to . require dedicated drainage easement. Case No. 82-lIA, Planned Unit Development for Duplex on Two _ Adioining Lots, 3129 New Brighton Road Council was referred to Planning memo (6-30-82), transparency of the duplex site, recommendations of the Planning Commission (minutes of 7-7-82) and to Cer'tifica.te of Survey of the proposed lots on which the site amenities are sketched as they currently exist (devel- opment plan). Miller explained that the purpose of the pun is to control the use of the land - to "lock in" the duplex use, even after the existing building is gone; explained that waiver of the extensive Planned Unit Development submissions is recommended, since the building exists and the project is minor in size. -4-