Laserfiche WebLink
rty), 4680 <br />>rmit (PRD) <br />create 10 <br />4) <br />3) <br />nuary 16, <br />density), <br />il is for a <br />4 acres <br />pace for <br />il-de-sac <br />uded and <br />iJce up the <br />If and <br />- for the <br />>r review <br />A <br />Page 2 <br />I have reviewed the report submitted on septic system drainfield <br />sites. I note that proposed Lot 9 has not been tested. In addition, <br />my confirmative borings indicated the proposed drainfield sites on <br />Lots 8 and 10 are in Hamel Loam soils which have an extremely high <br />seasonal water table and are not suitable to use for drainfield. Also <br />my boring on Lot 7 indicated seasonally saturated soils at a depth of <br />about 3', requiring mound systems rather than shallow trenches. I did <br />not make confirmative borings on the remaining lots; however, the <br />developer's agents have been made aware of the problems and are in the <br />process of reevaluating the sites as necessary to meet the On-Sitd Code <br />requirements. <br />In reviewing each building site, I note that Lot 10 has direct access <br />only to County Road 84 and would require a separate County entrance <br />permit. It has been the City's policy in the past to require all lots <br />in a subdivision to be accessed off interior roads. Does Planning <br />Commission see this as a problem? Hennepin County has indicated there <br />should not be a problem with Lot 10. Lots 1 thru 9 would access via the <br />cul-de-sac. <br />Based on topography. Lots 1-4 contain slopes averaging 10-15 percent. <br />Based on the proposed drainfield site locations, adhering to the RR-IA <br />setback standards, would place major restrictions on acceptable house <br />locations for these lots. Planning Commission should consider <br />allowing less stringent setback requirements (this is allowable under <br />a PRD). It is also strongly recommended that you require a building <br />envelope for lots 1 thru 7, all of which may be quite restricted due to <br />slopes and drainfield locations. <br />Another unresolved issue is the previously unapproved Dunn property at <br />4740 Bayside Road. Referring to Planning Commission minutes of <br />February 7, 1983 (Exhibit I), Planning Commission recommended that a <br />49' X 238' parcel be added to the Dunn property. Also refer to Zoning <br />Administrator Mabusth's memo dated March 10, 1983, listing the options <br />available in order to provide area adequate to handle future <br />drainfield needs for the Dunn's. Planning Commission is asked to <br />reaffirm their position on this issue. <br />Note that this revised proposal includes new building sites only <br />within the Orono School District. <br />A recommendation to approve should be conditioned on the resolution of <br />the following issues prior to Council approval: <br />1. Creation of a parcel (specify or reaffirm size) to be combined with <br />the property at 4740 Bayside Road. <br />2. Owners of the property shall dedicate 33' of right-of-way to <br />Hennepin County for County Road 84. <br />3. Formal designation of building envelopes within the "building <br />pads" for at least Lots 1 thru 7, addressing what setbacks will be <br />required. <br />:.r <br />>’ J <br />f f <br />'.•-il- <br />V: <br />: <br />mm <br />A <br />4. Cr« <br />Outlet <br />includ< <br />f orma 1 ! <br />used f< <br />5. Res <br />Council <br />6. Sul <br />7. Sul <br />outlet <br />8. Su; <br />wetlani <br />9. Co