Laserfiche WebLink
«04-3027 <br />June 21, 2004 <br />Page 6 of 7 <br />Utility Locations and Availability <br />Tlic property would be served by public sewer and water. It is assumed that all other <br />utilities will be underground and located within the right-of-way. <br />Lakcshorc Proximity and Conformity with Shorcland Regulations <br />This property is not located within the Shorcland Overlay District and is therefore not <br />subject to hardcover or lake setbacks. It shoul 1 be noted however that the Dumas <br />property to the west is located withi.n the Shorcland Overlay District and hardcover <br />standards will have to be reviewed at the time of development. This may have an indirect <br />ef fect on how tlic applicant proposes to dc\ elop this pr' ;>crty. <br />Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted <br />As mentioned earlier in this report, the City will require a l-'lowage and Conservation <br />Easement over the wetland designated on the site. 1 he applicant is advised to avoid any <br />impacts to wetlands which can be avoided by proper site layout. The Minnehaha Creek <br />Watershcci District (MCWD) is the City’s LGIJ for administration of the Wetland <br />Conservation Act rules. <br />Tree and/or Woodland Impacts <br />The site is extremely flat and open however, the developer would be encouraged to <br />preserve as much existing vegetation as possible, especially along existing Highway 12. <br />the Highway 12 Bypass and Old Cry.stal Hay Road. The Planning Commission slunild <br />di.scuss berm-buildin_, and further veget.ition requirements along the north, south, and <br />ca.stcrn lots lines in an ci»ort to reduce any negative impacts, such as noise, th:a result <br />from heavy levels of traffic. <br />IsMie.s f<ir Discussion <br />1. Mthouyli the plan proposes *1.0 units per acre, arc the goals established under the <br />Community .Management Plan addressed? <br />2.Could th? City benefit from a development, such as this? If so. should the entire <br />property be developed in this manner, or should this 13 acres incorporate more <br />than one style of lu>uscs? <br />Is the issue of mixed use of single family residences and townhouscs addressed? <br />.Should this property development under one .single use? <br />4.SlV’ild t!ic City allow the property to be developed without deveh'ping at least a <br />‘Ms,-on" of how the Dumas piece to tlx west might be included? <br />5.If the Dum.is property develops a townhouse use, arc tlierc possibilities for <br />negative transitions through this propo.scd development? <br />u. Are the setbacks proposed reasonable? Can the site support 50 single family lilts'^ <br />Should the developer be encouraged to develop a plan tnat includes town^->u^es <br />?