Laserfiche WebLink
Lrst, the <br />5ved in <br />5e of un- <br />.'e been <br />:ant <br />i of a <br />:he <br />I plus acres <br />Note <br />I off <br />icre lot <br />the title <br />i of the <br />horro stead <br />, block 1. <br />e actuul <br />Planning Commission <br />March 14, 1984 <br />page 2 <br />Review of the eight lot plat: <br />Septic - I have enclosed Gaffron's review (Exhibit F). <br />Clearly, we will require additional septic test data <br />before we can confirm the proposed lot lines. Outlot G <br />has been proposed as is rather than a residential lot <br />(lot 2, block 3) because of the inability to locate suitable <br />on site septic areas. The rural outlot has 4.98 acres of <br />dry buildable. It cannot be considered buildable. An open <br />space easement should be required for Outlot G so that a <br />future owner can easily ''remember” that it is unbuildable <br />until replat and confirmation of suitabr^e septic area and <br />an approved septic system design is submitted. <br />Many of the percolation tests can be redone according to <br />acceptable and approved procedures - some proposed mounds <br />sites may prove potentiril shallow trench sites. Portions <br />of lot 4, block I's aJternate site are located within the <br />road outlot and lot 1, block 3. Lots 1 and 2, block 2 test <br />sites are located within power utility easements. If trucks <br />must trespass over area, these cannot be suitable sites. <br />Road - Private - Hennepin County appro/es the access <br />locc'tion (Exhibit I). Review Exhibit G, Cook recommends <br />that the curve at 5 + 00 should have the radius length in­ <br />creased to 275 feet, the road paved with 3” bituminous <br />surfacing and 8" base class 5 gravel, ditches 2' below center- <br />line crown and drainage plan provided with culvert sizing. <br />Cook's comments on rearrangement of lots 1 and 4 are not valid <br />since lot 1 is a developed lot with existing access on <br />County Road 6. Gaffron confirms no need for sepNc concerns. <br />M.C.W.D. - The M.C.W.D. (Exhibit H) has reviewed the plat <br />and has the following comments; <br />Drainage easement over area below 960 elevation involving <br />lots 2 and 3, block 1; lot 1, block 2, outlets A, B, B <br />and E. <br />Deteri ine high water level in drainage plan for 24" sized <br />CMP - designate drainage easement below that determined <br />high water elevation involving lot 2, block 2; lots 1 <br />and 2, block 3 and outlot F. <br />Bench mark must be designated in final grading and <br />drainage plan. <br />Plan: <br />Marc: <br />page <br />ir .-mm