CCP 04-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 1999 ~OO~~f 8 drainage, away from the building, down to the lake. He referred to Exhibit E, which shows the - contours of the area and it would appear that the drainage flows directly from the west and runs - behind the homes.on Lake Valentine Road. Most of the proposed buildable area would be outside the natural flow. Based on the location of the buildable area, the setbacks, and eliminating the wetland area, the proposal theoretically should not affect the drainage. Chair Erickson asked Staff if there should be any additional provisions or if the issue of the wetland and drainage was covered by the Rice Creek Watershed review. Mr. Ringwald stated that in the past the City had required public water easements for storage of drainage water. He indicated that he was not sure if this situation would fall under this category. Chair Erickson stated that, according to the contour drawing, it would appear that there is drainage at the rear property line. Mr. Ringwald stated that there would be drainage utilities provided between the two lots. Ms. Schacht reiterated her concern for flooding of the area. She stated that she has lived in the area since 1949 and there have been times when the entire area has been flooded. Chair Erickson stated that, based on the findings of the minimum requirements for a lot, both lots would meet these requirements with regard to size, dimension and buildable area. Therefore, there would be no grounds to not recommend approval of the minor subdivision. Ms. Randall concurred and noted that additional restrictions could be placed on the request, if the Plamring Commission feels it would be necessary. e Ms. Schacht asked what the minimum requirements are for lot width and depth. Ms. Randall explained that the lots must be 130 feet long and 95 feet wide. However, since the proposed lot is a comer lot, the minimum width would be 105 feet. Ms. Schacht indicated that her primary concern would be for the lot that contains the existing home. The lot is very low and the existing home has no basement. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked, based on the minimum lot requirements, would there be anything to prevent the owners of the lots directly behind the existing home from requesting to split their lots. Ms. Randall stated that access to these lots would be an issue. Additionally, these lots are narr6wer than the lot under consideration. Therefore, the other lots may not meet the minimum square foot requirement. Commissioner Rye asked Staff to explain the internal process for ensuring that the new home meets the minimum requirements, particularly the basement elevation requirement. Ms. Randall explained that when the building permit is requested, the permit will require that the structure not be built below the 906.2 feet without providing proof of adequate drainage. Commissioner Rye asked how this requirement is caught during the building permit application process. Ms. Randall explained that at the time the permit is requested, the Building Inspector would review, or have the Staff review, the conditions of approval of the Planning Case. e Commissioner Sand referred to Stafi's recommendation that the basement elevation not be below 906.2 feet and that Engineering specifications providing proof of adequate drainage below 906.2 feet "may be" submitted to Staff for approval below this level. He suggested that the