05-21-1990 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1532 May 18, 1990 Page 2 of 3 A future access corridor to the south has been shown and per Planning Commission's directives, the northern corridor requested by the City Engineer has not been designated. The l?*-:.inepin County Department of Transportation will review the plat to determine if additional right-of-way will be sought for County Road 6. The City will ask for 7' of additional right-of-way along Willow Drive to be consistent with previous acquisitions along Willow Drive with other subdivisions. The Planning Commission may remember that Mr. Cox, the owner of Lot 1, Block 1, contested the issue of granting an additional 7' of right-of- way. Staff has not received any additional written material to support his position. Clearly, the City staff must ask for the right-of-way if Mr. Cox wishes to appeal to the Council he may do so. Staff would only request that he state his position in writing. The City will ask for underlying road and utility easements over Outlets A and B and the execution of maintenance covenants to insure regular maintenance and upkeep of road. Dickey Lake shall be designated at the 985.5' elevation. Staff met with the applicant out at the site and staked the perimeters of the adjacent wetlands to Dickey Lake. This area is shown on your preliminary plan defined as edge of wetlands. The applicant is in the process of preparing for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review. A copy of the preliminary grading and drainage plan is enclosed in your packets (Exhibit F). As these plans were just received (5/17/90), the City Engineer has not had adequate time to submit his review comments. The applicant has shown 2 road names for the 2 plat roads (Kings Run Drive and Cox Farm Road). Upon preliminary approval, applicant will be asked to provide additional road name choices for the formal road name review by the City. At this point in the review, staff is unable to provide a final recommendation concerning the septic report submitted for preliminary approval. Unfortunately, the rains have delayed diegramming of septic locations on each property. In addition, Gaffron reports in the sections of the septic diagrams submitted, huuse sites have beer shown at a minimal unrealistic size and septic drainfields have not been shown to their full size, nor will some meet the required setback from the lot line when fully shown. He has also noted that he may have to request a lot line change. Gaffron has recommended that we table action on the preliminary plan until he can make a final recommendation to the Planning Commission. He has advised that he will seek direction from the Commission concerning a need to realign the shared lot line between Lots 6 and 7 that would require approval of a lot width variance for Lot 6.