Laserfiche WebLink
II II <br /> Zoning File #2293 <br /> September 11, 1997 <br /> Page 8 <br /> recommendation to approve one. The same applies for Lots 8 and(perhaps) 11. <br /> 11. Septic testing has been submitted for Lots 9 and 10. The proposed layout appears to <br /> accommodate two mound system sites in each lot within the lot boundaries and <br /> meeting the required setbacks. As noted earlier, the proposed private driveway and <br /> potential requirement for a 35' or 50' setback from the driveway depending on how <br /> these lots are considered,leaves limited room for construction of a residence between <br /> the driveway and the septic sites on Lot 9. <br /> 12. Existing structures on the property are intended to be removed. <br /> 13. Applicant proposes islands in the cul-de-sacs. The City Engineer has noted that the <br /> City usually discourages islands in cul-de-sacs. If islands are to be used, additional <br /> right-of-way must be provided. <br /> 14. The City Engineer notes that the proposed driveway for Lot 11 makes use of the <br /> private driveway serving Lots 9 and 10. This will have to be revised since the City <br /> code only allows two users of a shared driveway;the third user triggers the need for <br /> development of a road. <br /> 15. The Engineer notes that grading plans will be required for individual lots prior to <br /> building permits. A proposed driveway location for Lot 1 should be shown. <br /> 16. Access to Outlots A and B should be discussed along with the intent for future use <br /> of those properties. Both outlots currently abut undeveloped Highview Lane which <br /> is not proposed to be vacated. <br /> 17. The City Engineer has noted that storm sewer design should include provisions for <br /> controlling runoff at the south end of the site, and should be submitted to the DNR <br /> and MCWD for review and approval. <br /> 18. The City Engineer has provided an estimate of the total cost for the site <br /> improvements and the amount of the required financial guarantee as part of the <br /> developer's agreement. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Commission is advised to consider the rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment first, as a <br /> separate issue from the vacation and subdivision layout. If there is sufficient support for these <br /> changes, the subdivision and vacation request should be reviewed. To avoid a 'chicken or egg' <br /> scenario, pplicant should be allowed to make his presentation in support of his proposed <br />