Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />April25, 2000 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />In 1993, the City vacated the north half of the right-of-way (ROW), but for some reason <br />documentation was never filed. Also, staff discovered the property was never assessed <br />for the original sewer and water utility connections which the applicant would be <br />responsible for ifthe project were approved. <br /> <br />The City Engineer and applicant reviewed and developed modifications to the grading <br />plan by installing retaining walls and shifting the driveway to the east to address sloping <br />and saving of the Oak trees. The new structure would meet all minimum required <br />setbacks, and is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Teague acknowledged that a strong argument can be made for both sides. It appears that <br />sewer and water stubs were constructed to serve the north side, however, the land owner <br />was never assessed. The City had granted lot width variances in other areas of the City, <br />but in those instances there were similar substandard lot widths in surrounding properties. <br />There are no substandard lot widths on Roxanna or Valerie Ln. <br /> <br />Larson believes the reason the improvements were never assessed was that the <br />connections were never deemed for this lot, but for development down the street for a <br />future residential connection. City Manager Matthew Fulton noted it is unusual a Y2 inch <br />pipe would be installed for use as a distribution system. Larson added the Y2 inch pipe is <br />located at the corner of the lot. <br /> <br />Samuelson verified that the proposed driveway will be constructed across platted ROW. <br /> <br />City Attorney Charlie LeFevere noted a similar case reviewed by Dakota County which <br />the judge did not allow installation of a private drive within a subdivision. However, this <br />case does not affect Ramsey County and should not be considered a precedence. <br /> <br />Moore-Sykes has strong concerns of the proposal's retaining wall and its effect on <br />storm water drainage impacting the low areas of adjacent backyards. <br /> <br />Jim Lindgren, 1665 Roxanna Ln., submitted a petition signed by 40 adjacent property <br />owners opposing the variance. The petition states the substandard lot does not fit with the <br />neighborhood, the lot would contain no frontage, possible drainage concerns, fire and <br />police protection issues, additional traffic, and reduce home values. <br /> <br />George Matson, 1640 29th Ave., feels the east side retaining wall will affect drainage, and <br />may damage the large oak tree. <br /> <br />Bob Kinney, 2933 Valerie Ln., has great concern of additional drainage impacting his <br />property, and asked the allowable maximum square footage. Teague said the maximum <br />foot area ratio (FAR) is 30% and this proposal's ratio is 21 %. The FAR does not take into <br />consideration driveway surfacing. Kinney does not feel this case should be compared to <br />previous granted variances in other parts of the City. <br /> <br />Motion by Hoffman, seconded by Moore-Sykes, to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DENYING PLOO-2; AND WAIVE THE READING <br />AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DENYING VNOO-l. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Minor lot Subdivision <br />and lot width variance <br />2924 16th St. NW <br />Report 00-104 <br />Resolution 00-034 <br />Resolution 00-035 <br />