09-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision September 11, 1997 Page 4 whether the northerly cul-de-sac is appropriately located. The proposed island in the easterly cul-de-sac will require additional width, right-ot-way and pavement unless the island is omitted. 3. Erosion controls must be in place before any site grading, and additional erosion measures will be needed along the steep slope between Lots 3 and 4 where sewer construction will take place. 4. Applicant must provide confirmation and calculations showing that rates are controlled so that post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows. This plan requires MCWD approval and should also be submitted to the DNR. 5. Easements should be provided for any existing utilities in the area to be vacated. General Issues for Consideration and Discussion 1.The initial plan submitted by the application deadline included a stormwater pond in the north half of Lot 1, with an easement protecting the length of the ravine in Lot 1, Block 2. Because the stormwater pond requires an easement that cannot be attributed towards buildable lot area, a revised plan was submitted on August 29 that proposes a stormwater pond within the south leg of the ravine. The obvious intent of this change is to allow two conforming building sites west of the new Garden Lane. From staffs perspective, it would be inappropriate to construct the stormwater pond within the upper reaches of the ravine as proposed in the current plan for the following reasons: 2. a. b. c. d. Results in the removal of numerous mature trees. Results in a total change in the character of the ravine area. Has a negative visual impact from the adjacent park land. Forces the location of a single family residence within 10-20' of a neighborhood stormwater pond, on a lot that is intended as a walkout towards that pond. It appears to staff that this is not an environmentally friendly design, although from an engineering standpoint it may function to serve its intended purpose. The proposed temporary cul-de-sac extending into the DNR interest park propert>' is problematic in that while the City likely has a right to put in a driveway access, it does not have the right to place a cul-de-sac within that property. It is staffs opinion that the cul-de-sac should be moved further east to not encroach the park property, and perhaps should be pulled back to the southeast side of the ravine drainageway, where