09-11-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#17-3962 August 21, 2017 Page 5 of 6 A Conservation Design Report has been submitted (Exhibit D) and notes the wetlands discussed previously and the identification of 129 substantial trees (greater than 6" DBH), 127 of them Boxelder and Elm. The landscaping plan suggests the planting of 94 new trees to the property, adding to the vegetative diversity. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee) on a per -lot basis at the rate of $3,025 per lot. The fee will be $6,050 per the 2017 Fee Schedule. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval. Park/Trail Easement/Fees or Dedication Needed No new parks or trails are planned for in the area of this property. Assuming the City Council finds no need for a public park at this site, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee of $5,550 per each new building lot would be due at final plat approval, assuming that records will indicate that no park fees were paid in the past (verification required prior to final plat). Utility Locations and Availability The property is served by municipal water and sewer. Based on a review of the assessment history for this property, it was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1965 and no sewer connection charge would be due save for the Metropolitan Council SAC charge which is currently $2,485 per dwelling unit. City water was installed in 1970 and the property was assessed for one unit; if more than one home is built, a water connection charge of $4,240 for the second unit would be due at the time a building permit is issued. Engineer Comments The City Engineer has prepared comments which should be addressed prior to formal Planning Commission approval, or as a condition of such approval. Fire Department Comments Chief Van Eyll, based on a review of the Sketch Plan suggested that due to the difficulty of access to this site, he would recommend: - the residences be provided with fire suppression sprinkler systems; - no contractor parking be allowed on Ivy Place during construction; and - it would be beneficial for emergency and service vehicles to allow a driveway wider than 8 feet to serve the two homes (the distance from end of Ivy Place to the northerly proposed home is approximately 250'). Public Comments As noted above, the view easement in favor of the Powell property at 2916 Casco Point Road, exists, impacting the property. There was some discussion during the sketch plan phase to remove this easement, however, the property owner has submitted a letter indicating a desire to retain the easement, provided as Exhibit K. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the subdivision is consistent with City Code and the Comprehensive Plan? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose additional conditions in order to protect the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Code? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?