12-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WS-3131 October 13, lOOS Page 2 New Information Revised Plans Submitted Week of October 10. Revised plans were submitted within the past week. Staff would note the following items of interest: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Lot dimensions remain unchanged from the Sept. 8 plan. More refined house layouts and individual site grading schemes have been added, more clearly indicating those areas where wetland protection requirements limit site flexibility. Water main from Long Lake has been added to the plan, as has a proposed trail connection through the church parking lot to Glendale Drive. The grading plan indicates virtually the entire site will be graded and trees & vegetation removed, save for a 1500 s.f. area at the SE comer of Lot 5, where some pines will be saved. Applicant as of this writing is woridng on some visual depictions of what trees and vegatation along Willow Drive will be saved, and is preparing a site revegetation & landscaping plan 'that will propose (hopefully) substantial plantings on the berms at the rear of Lots 6-7-S-9-10, the row of homes that will be most visible as viewed from Willow Drive. Applicant is requesting wetland buffer setback variances for the homes on Lots 7 and 8, to be setback 10’ f jm the buffer instead of the required 20’. Staff will recommend that John Smyth, the City’s wetland consultant at Bonestroo & Associates, review the request and suggest vdiat course of action should be followed in reviewing the proposal. The required buffer will be established and maintained on all lots, however, so the primary issue is how close the homes on Lots 7 and 8 should be to the unmowable buffer area. A question to consider is whether the 20’ setback requirement should be varied, or whether the applicant should pursue having the wetland re-categorized to only require a 16’ buffer. The buildable area of Lot 7 becomes very narrow (50’ wide) under the 20’ setback requirement; the buildable area of Lot 8 becomes quite shallow. In both cases, this does not necessarily render those lots unbuildable, but the useful footprint is restricted; this does have significant impact on house design options, eqiecially for Lot 7. The stormwater ponding area in Lot 6 is tqiparently a detention (rate control) pond only and can reason^ly remain as part of Lot 6; tte City Engineer will be asked to comment on whether this should be covered by an easement 7" The City EngineQ* has not had an opportunity to review the newly submitted plans.