My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-17-1998 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
02-17-1998 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2023 1:14:04 PM
Creation date
7/27/2023 1:05:22 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
366
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
File #2341 <br />February 12, 1998 <br />Page 4 <br />Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed <br />Hennepin County is likely to indicate that additional County Road right-of-way should be granted <br />' for future needs. The Comprehensive Plan categorizes this segment of Old Crystal Bay Road as a <br />'scenic parkway' which requires a right-of-way width no greater then 66'. Since 66' exists, and since <br />no additional right-of-way was granted or required from the French Creek Woods plat across from <br />this proposed subdivision, the City would be consistent in not requiring the dedication of additional <br />right-of-way for Old Crystal Bay Road. <br />Applicant has provided a grading plan for construction of the road in Outlot A, with the intent that <br />the future owner of Lot 7 would construct a driveway within the portion of Outlot A dedicated for <br />that use. Note tliat the length of the proposed road and cul-de-sac is approximately 700', meeting <br />the City's cul-de-sac length limitation. <br />Stormwater/Drainage/Grading Plan <br />Exhibit E is the applicant's preliminary grading/drainage and erosion control plan. At this time, <br />applicant is not proposing any stormwater ponding on site. The City Engineer has recommended <br />that stormwater ponding be provided for this site. This also needs MCWD review. The City has <br />consistently required stormwater ponds for this t\ pe of residential development, hence the developer <br />will have to make a strong case to convince staff that it is not needed for this site. <br />Note that most proposed grading stays within the right-of-way of Outlot A, a portion of the grading <br />extends into the adjacent lots. It is especially critical to maintain the grading limits within Lot 4, <br />where fill will be needed directly adjacent to the primary septic site, as is also the case in Lot 5. In <br />Lot 1, the grading also is ver>' close to both the primary and alternative trench drainfield sites and <br />extreme caution must be taken to avoid disturbing those sites during the road construction process. <br />For Lot 6, proposed grading to create a walkout site is proposed near the middle of the lot. That <br />grading appears to extend slightly into the bluff impact zone (20' from top of bluff) and should be <br />revised slightly to avoid such encroachment. All other lots appear to have suitable building sites for <br />the intended house types, with no grading proposed for the building loeations on those lots <br />Utilities <br />Since there are no City utilities serving this part of the City, there are no assessment or connection <br />fees required. The applicant is responsible for arranging necessary electric/gas/phone/cable utility <br />lines as needed to serve the plat.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.