10/17/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

.Page 5 Planning and Zoning October 17, 1979 Next on the agenda was the resubmission of Mr. Menkveld's Forest Glen plat. There were copies of a letter from Mr. Short dated October 15, which Mr. Doocey read, and Mr. Gourley said Mr. Short wished the Planning Commission to understand that in writing this letter he was reviewing the plat not necessarily as it had been reviewed before, but more in light of the things that had been discussed along with the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gourley asked if Mr. Menkveld had addressed himself to the items in Mr. Short's previous letter; Mr. Menkveld indicated the final plat had been approved, but not filed or signed, and not contingent on any conditions. The money had not been paid yet for the park dedication, which` had been set at $8,800; Mr. McLean indicated it was now at an acre. The street alignment with Sunset Oaks was dis- cussed and there was som 'rnausion as to what Mr. Short was referring to. There was one street that intersected with an existing street, and their outlots tied in with outlots A and B, but there were no other existing streets from Sunset Oaks connecting with the property:", There was a 30 -ft. easement along these outlots, and along the Sunset Oaks outlots, so -that eventually a street could be developed. Mr. Menkveld was asked what the proposed use of outlots A and B were; he said they would be sold to the adja- cent people for more acreage, because thetopography did nb allow them to be buildable. If the city needed them for ponding easement, they would be -deeded to the city with the streets. He indicated Rice Creek Watershed had been involved in this, and approved it at one time, but had not requested any precise area for ponding --the runoff did not go into any watershed, but collected in the natural low areas. Mr. Gourley read the parts of Mr. Gotwald's letter dealing with drainage, but he had made no reference to outlot A. Apparently the water was intended to drain between A and B. Mr. Gourley wondered if A couldn't be a platted lot rather than an outlot, and Mr. Reinert felt that as an outlot it would allow free movement of the water, and if so, you wouldn't want a private indi- vidual owning it:- Mr. Shearen noted there was a 2 -foot drop in elevation from outlot A to B. Mr. Gourmley said he would like the engineer to make a determination as to accepting that outlot or if it could be developed into lots. There seemed to be less buildable property on Lot 8 than on outlot A. He noted Mr. Gotwald's letter did say the back end of lot 8, block 6, should be reserved as a drainage easement, but outlot A was not addressed. Mr. Menkveld suggested part of this could be a drainage easement, and the rest lot 9., Mr. Gourley suggested lots 1 and 8 be extended. In reference to resubdividing, Mr.-Menkveld felt it would be possible with the exception of block 6, which wouldn't split well because of the low land. Mr. Menkveld felt the only thing that could be done was to recommend to the buyer that it was to his advantage to put the house to one side; he felt that it only could be suggested, but not enforced. The planner's letter from 1977 referred to a park dedication of 8 acres of land rather than money, which was discussed, and will be sent on to the Park Boarr Also, the letter referred to lot 1, block 6, as less than one acre; however, this had Been taken care of. Also, it noted the 30 -ft. road and utility easement was not shown on the plat, but Mr. Locher had for some reason wanted it on the deeds rather than on the plat. Mr. Gourley felt it should be shown on the plat rather than the deed, because if one man wanted to sell and another didn't, it could hold up the project. He felt this would be similar to Brian Dobie's situation, but Mr. McLean indicated that was not a plat. Mr. Gourley noted blocks 4 and 5 would need some type of easement if they were resplit. In review, he felt the drawings should be resubmitted to Mr. Gotwald so he could make a recommend- ation as to the drainage in outlot A, as to the possibility of combining that with two or three other lots in the area rather than accepting an outlot. Outlot B should be looked into also, to see if that could be handled with lots and drainage easements. Copies should also be submitted to the Park Board for their recommendation. A copy should also be submitted to Mr. Locher to have him make a recommendation as to how to handle the easements along the edge of block 7 and 8 to insure future road right-of-ways, as it was felt this should be shown on the plat. Also, easements for future streets in blocks 4 and 5 should be considered. Vi Schwankl moved to table the matter until the next meeting. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. /