CCP 05-24-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 7, 1999 DRAFT 2 The City Attorney has provided the City with some guidance, which deals with the ownership of Shoreline Lane adjacent to the Rushenberg and Wesslund properties, Bachman access, and future _ street construction escrow. The road across the RushenberglWesslund properties has been .- maintained by the City for a long period of time; however, the City does not own this portion of the road. According to the City Attorney, there are several ways the City could pursue gaining proper title to this segment of Shoreline Lane, Prescriptive Easement, Purchase/Gift, or Eminent Domain. . The Bachman property is currently accessed via a private drive, which runs through the property. The applicant has taken steps to provide an easement in Lot 2, Block 2 along the property line in order to allow Mr. Bachman access to the right-of-way. The applicant also plans to construct a small driveway to the proposed cul-de-sac to satisfY access for Mr. Bachman. Staff recommends there be an escrow for the approximately 75 feet from the cul-de-sac to the northern property line. In the future, when the Bachman property develops, this would provide the City with the money to change the road from a cul-de-sac to a straight through street. The applicant had provided information pertaining to a section of State Statute that would allow the City to take the right-of-way faster than those outlined by Attorney Filla. Attorney Filla has reviewed this and believes this would not be the best alternative due to the fact that it is unclear as to the method of establishing interest of record and it would only cover the improved surface. A purchase/gift would probably be the least expensive and time-consuming method. Additionally, the current property owners (WesslandlRushenberg) could challenge this method of acquiring the road and the City could wind up in court. e With the last two Planning Cases (98-33 and 99-01) related to this site, staff received letters from neighboring property owners, which were included in the staffreport. No new letters have been received; however, some of the letters appear to apply to this Planning Case. The Subdivision Ordinance requires easements, at least 12 feet wide centered on lot lines, for utilities which shall be dedicated to the City. The original plat did not show these required easements. A revised plan was provided to the Planning Commission, which does show the easements to satisfY this requirement. Also included in the new plan was grading information, which had not originally been submitted. This information was submitted to the City Engineer for review. The preliminary plat provides for no dedication of park land thus, park dedication fees are required for the preliminary plat. With regard to the variance request, staff would conclude that several lots in the neighborhood are of similar nature being 80 feet wide where 85 feet is required. Ms. Randall advised that staff recommends that Planning Case 99-03, preliminary plat including the variances for a lot width of 80 feet provided where 85 feet is required for Block I lots I and 2, and Block 2 lots I and 2, be approved, based on the findings of the variance section of the Staff report dated May 5,1999, subject to the following conditions: 1. Title information be submitted to the City for review by the City Attorney. e Ms. Randall stated that the title information has been submitted and is being reviewed by the City Attorney.