Laserfiche WebLink
•04-3027 <br />June 21.2004 <br />Pege 6 of 7 <br />Utility Locations and Availability <br />The property would be served by public sewer and water. It is assumed that all other <br />utilities will be underground aitd located within the right-of-way. <br />Lakeshore Proximity and Conformity w ith Shoreland Regulations <br />This property is not located within the Shoreland Overlay District and is therefore not <br />subject to hardcover or lake setbacks. It should be noted however that the Dumas <br />property to the west is located within the Shoreland Overlay District and hardcover <br />standard wili have to be reviewed at the time of development. This may have an indirect <br />effect on how the applicant proposes to develop this property. <br />Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted <br />As mentioned earlier in this report, the City will require a Flowage and Conservation <br />Easement over the wetland designated on the site. The applicant is advised to avoid any <br />impacts to wxtlands which can be avoided by proper site layout The Minnehaha Creek <br />Watershed District (MC>M3) is the City's LGU 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 vc';?tation as possible, especially along existing Highway 12, <br />the Highway 12 Bypass and Old Crystal Bay Road. The Planning Commission should <br />discuss berm <uilding and further vegetation requirements along the north, south, and <br />eastern lots lines in an effort to reduce any negative impacts, such as noise, that result <br />from heavy levels of traffic. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1. Although the plan proposes 4.0 units per acre, are the goals established under the <br />Community Management Plan addressed? <br />2. Could the 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 houses? <br />3. Is the issue of mixed use of single family residences and towTihouses addressed? <br />Should this property development under one single use? <br />4. Should the City allow the property tc he developed without developing at least a <br />“vision" of how the Dumas piece to the west might be included'’ <br />5. If the Dumas property develops a townhouse use, are there possibilities for <br />negative transitions through this proposed development? <br />6. Arc the setbacks proposed reasonable? Can the site support 50 single family lots? <br />7. Should the developer be encouraged to develop a plan that includes townhouses