08-12-1981 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In view of past problems concerning the grading and filling being undertaken, and concerns raised by neighboring residents regarding drainage in the area, it is recommended that as part of the resub- division request, a grading and drainage plan should now be submitted. This plan should show the existing topography and the extent of any additional grading and filling. The grading and drainage plan should be subject to favorable review by the City Engineer. Also regarding drainage, the Watershed District should be contacted for their input on this request. 2. Lot Configuration. As previously mentioned, some sort of resubdivision seems to be reasonable. The design proposed by the applicant on Exhibit C, however, is not considered acceptable from a planning per- spective. The gerrymandered lot line between Lot 4 and 6 results in the rear rectangle of property on Lot 4 being virtually unusable after setbacks and required easements are considered. The sketch shown on Exhibit E provides a more acceptable lot layout. 3. Replatting. Although the City has previously allowed resubdivision of property by metes and bounds, in most instances it has been a case of simple subdivision. That is where one lot has been split or where a lot line has been relocated. In view of the complicated legal descriptions involved, it is strongly recommended that the resubdivision be required to be formally replatted in compliance with the Little Canada Subdivision Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION In view of the grading and drainage issues raised in the preceding analysis, City approval should be based upon the City Engineer's review and comments as well as approval of the Watershed District. If found to be acceptable from an engineering standpoint, the resubdivision should be formally replatted based upon the recommended design shown on Exhibit E. cc: Joe Chlebeck Don Carley Clayton Parks Paul Sprosty Ramsey -Metro Washington Watershed District 59