02-24-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 7 February 21, 1997 Zoning File niOA of Lot 3. This is the only wetland area found within the propert>’. Applicant will be asked to execute the standard covenant to alert future propc*^y ''wner of the location and need e ^eek approval of first the Minnehaha Creek Watershed D strict tnd Corps of Engineer before presenting a plan to City for altering the Type 2 vvetla^^d. Grading/Draiiiage Applicant's grading plan proposes a retention pond within Lot 1 to maintain and treat runoff from development of I ots 1 and 2. The plan provides for a 20' easement over drainageway that leads to retention pond as requested by engineer (Exhibit G). Note drainage from culvert beneath road flows to the northwest at the north side dToadway and to the southeast to the south side through Lot 5. Drainage does not all flow to the south tli.ough Lot 5 as originally assumed in the sketch plan review. The City will as.% for a detailed grading plan with the development of Lots 2 and 5 to ensure drives will no? impact approved site drainage. 1 he City Engineer shall review the grading plan and size of culvert to be used where drive encroaches drainageways. Private Road Review Exhibit D, Planning Commission Members agreed that the existing drive and amenities should be presen ed as much as possible when applying the code standards for an upgraded private roadway at a 24' width. Exhibit G, the Engineer's report and. Exhibit II, the Long Lake Asst. Fire Chiefs review comments provide alternatives for the required upgrade. As for the entrance monuments, the City E i.,ineer recommends that the monuments be relocated to provide a 24' wide opening. In the Asst. F re Chiefs report, he recommends that the roadway for a distance of 100’ w'es*. of the entrance monuments be upgraded to a 28’ width to allow emergency vehicles to park to one side while another vc ’iicle could freely pass. Both ask that the existing turn at the west end of the retaining wall be upgraded to facilitate the turning of emergency vehicles. The current realignment is now' shown on your preliminary plan and has been approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has asked that the roadway in between the retaining walls for 500' be expanded to 22' with curbing. This can be a complished within the 24’ width that exists between retaining walls. Staff also recommends that the cul-de-sac be staked so that staff can determine w hat trees would need to be removed. There may be a need to adjust location c.'cul-de-sac to minimize tree removal. Both the Fire Department and the City Engineer recommend the drive be upgraded to a 24’ minimum width and a combination of curbing and ditching can be worked out in order to preser\ e as many of the existing plantings adjacent to the roadway. The Planning Commission approval specifically asks (Condition H-7, page 6} that staff work with applicant ’s engineer to determine if sections of road could be P ss than 24' in w’idth if the reduction would save mature trees and plantings.