12-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MS-3131 September IS, 200S Page 3 City Engineer Comments 9-13-05. The City Engineer has provided comments on the revised plans, attached as Exhibit C. His comments relatexl to engineering matters include the standard request for pavement design and geotechnical reports, drainage calculations, and level of detail required in final design plans. Additionally, he notes that in order to maintain appropriate freeboard for the walkouts on Lots 8-9-10, the walkout elevations need to be raised; also, that the proposed street grades will dam water on the church property unless road design changes or a storm sewer is added. MCWD Comments 8-4-05.- The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has concluded (see Exhibit D) that the wetland extension in Lot 8 is not “incidental”, and therefore is regulated under WCA rules. Applicant is ^jparently proposing to fill 1600 s.f. of that wetland to gain more buildable area within Lot 8. Wetland Ordinance Impacts The new Wetland Ordinance designates this wetland, including its extensions into Lots 8 and 10, as being a “Manage 2 ” protection classification, requiring a 25’ buffer plus 20’ structure setback from the buffer. In staffs discussions with Renae Clark of MCWD, she indicated that MCWD would treat tire wetland extensions (i.e. the ditch area in Lot 10 and the small pothole m Lot 8) as part of the main wetland body for buffer purposes. This will have a significant impact by reducing the buildable area within Lots 7,8,9 and 10, which has not been accounted for in the current plans, but is sketched in for discussion purposes on Exhibit A>2. Park Commission Request for Trail Easement. The Park Commission reviewed this plat at their September meeting and recommended that a 10’ trail easement be established within the property along Willow Drive. This easement would allow flexibility in the development of of trail connections to Hackbeny Park. Conservation Desigp. Applicant is aware that the City would like this project to incorporate elements of Conservation Design, as this area adjacent to Willow Drive was the subject of a specific ecological anal3^is by DSU as part of the Rural Oasis Study. Inherent in that is the retention of natural views into the site from the southwest, i.e. from the Hackberry neighboihood and from northbound traffic on Willow. Peihaps the best way to accomplish this would be for the applicant to provide an existing tree and vegetation survey as well as a proposed visual buffer plan, defining what existing visual elements (trees, shrubs, topogn^)hy) will be retained, what will be destroyed via development, and what will be replaced in order to meet the City ’s goals for this site. The prelimiiuuy plat and grading/drainageAitility plans provided to date do not specifically provide the level of information to adequately address Ae visual impacts of this development Gmcral Comments Many of the comments noted in the July PC memo are still aj^licable. Planning Commission reached conclusions on certain topics at the July meeting, as noted in the July 25 Notice of PC Action, including; RPUD is the appropriate zone for this develo|Mnent; based on the current RR-1 B underlying zoning that allows the church use via CUP, the church lot (Lot 2) should be excluded from the rezoning to RPUD. (OK)