09-11-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2051 Auzust 16, 1995 Page 3 W southeast comer of property. Review Exhibit M, Gu^t-fson notes the drainage swale leading from cul-de-sac has a high potential for erosion because of the steep elevations and asks that swale be redesigned. Swale should either be stepped or grades reduced from 1% to 27c with riprap drops. He notes two options - either riprap the entire length of the drainagew ay or have a pipe installed instead of the swale. The drainage pipe alterative will require regular maintenance. Applicant may be best advised to use the riprap method. Gusiatson accepts the drainage and ponding calculations. Applicant has advised that the permit review’ process has commenced with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. At the sketch plan meeting, the applicant advised of two underground tiles that outlet along the east lot line, refer to E.\hrbit G. Applicant flagged the areas and staff met at the site to review drainage outlets. Gustafson’s report notes no need to protect the two drain tiles. During the review of the Peterman Second Addition, (property to immediate east) drainage plan was approved for the subdivision, review E.xhibits K and L. All drainage from development was to be directed along the west lot line to a drainage ditch at the north side of Watertown Road. Any drainage that comes from the Peterman Addition is directed along the west lot line along the approved drainage path defined by the swale in Lots 1 and 2. Gustafson’s report also notes need to show the ditch along the ii rth side of Watertown Road that must be excavated and trees cleared in the right-of-way to im rove drainage and site distance. The septic staff also advised of the need to keep drainage from overflowing into septic areas on Lot 4. Plans must be amended to include the upgrade and improvement of dn. inage ditch along Watertown and removal of any plantings that block view. The engineer asks that street construction plan be amended to include 3.5" of bituminous paving instead of 3" as proposed. Park Dedication During the sketch plan review, the acting chair asked that a copy of the Park Commission minutes be included in vour packets at the time of the review of the preliminary plat. As of this writing the park minutes are not available for inclusion. Staff has received information from John Gerhardson confimiirg that the Park Commission will ask for a park dedication fee in lieu of land dedication and asked that the area of the bike trail easement be deducted from the 87o land dedication. Review E.xhibits G and N, note discrepancy in easement dedication tor bike trail. Gerhardson has advised that the dedication shown on the preliminarv' plan. Exhibit G, is correct. Staff Recommendation To approve the four lot preliminarv- plat application for Michael Hilbelink finding all standards of the septic code and RR-IB zoning standards have been satisfied and grants a variance to the subdivision code that would have required all four lots to access a private road based on unique findings and hardships noted above. Approval is subject to the following conditions: