Laserfiche WebLink
I r.. <br />• * m <br />j. ;V»,. <br />Zoning File #2293 <br />September 11,1997 <br />Page 8 <br />« <br />. •* <br />11. <br />12. <br />13. <br />14. <br />18. <br />recommendation to approve one. The same applies for Lots 8 and (perhaps) 11 <br />-- .aor ai <br />- — <br />Septic testing has been submitted for Lots 9 and 10. The proposed layout appears to <br />accommodate two mound system sites in each lot within the lot boundaries and <br />meeting the required setbacks. As noted eculier, the proposed private driveway and <br />potential requirement for a 35' or 50' setback from the driveway depending on how <br />these lots are considered, leaves limited room for construction of a residence between <br />the driveway and the septic sites on Lot 9. <br />Existing structures on the property are intended to be removed. <br />Applicant proposes islands in the cul-de-sacs. Tlie City Engineer has noted that the <br />Citv usually discourages islands in cul-de-sacs. If islands are to be used, additional <br />right-of-way must be provided. <br />The City Engineer notes that the proposed driveway for Lot 11 makes use of the <br />private driveway serving Lots 9 and 10. This will have to be revised since the City <br />code only allows two users of a shared driveway; the third user triggers the need for <br />development of a road. <br />The Engineer notes that grading plans will be required for individual lots prior to <br />building permits. A proposed driveway location for Lot I should be shown. <br />.Access to Outlots A and B should be discussed along with the intent for future use <br />of those properties. Bot’i ' . tlots currently abut undeveloped Highview Lane which <br />is not proposed to be vacated. <br />The City Engineer has noted that storm sewer design should include provisions for <br />controlling runoff at the south end of the site, and should be submitted to the DNR <br />and MCWD for review and approval. <br />The City Engineer has provided an estimate of the total cost for the site <br />improvements and the amount of the required financial guarantee as part of the <br />developer's agreement. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Plannimz Commission is advised to consider the rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment first, as a <br />separate^ issue from the vacation and subdivision layout. If there is sufficient support for these <br />changes, the subdivision and vacation request should be reviewed. To avoid a 'chicken or egg' <br />scenario, pplicant should be allowed to make his presentation in support of his proposed