07-18-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1946 July 14. 1994 Pace 2 Review Exhibits B and I. In earlier sketch plan and subdivision revie^^-s of both parcels, access locations to the property were revie\^ed by the County. The one proposed in Option 2 is an approved access location. The prrcate road has been designated along the shared lot line of both parcels. A temporary cul-de-sac has been shown to the south with an extension corridor coniKCting the Annstrong property at the south. .Mready concluded in the earlier re\ lews ot the White subdivision, a furure western access to North Shore Drive will be provided via the Armstrong property because of the conllcuration of the wetland. As the wetland approactws the Amistnmg property from the north, it narrows to a drainageway that connects a more southerly wetland. Construction of a road would have less of an impact on the wetland at this intersection. The road outlot shall be platted as a private road with the City obtaining underlying road and utility easements, .\ccess to all undeveloped lots shall be via the private road. Developed Lots 6 and 7 shall continue to use their existing driveways at the County Road. A 33’ dedication will be required along Baysidc Road for the White portion ot the property as the 33’ dedication was already completed with the earlier Bay view Farms two lot plat, review Exhibit E. Along County Road 19 or Nonh Shore Drive, the developer shall grant a total 40 right-of-way. This dedication would be consistent with the City ’s transportation plan based on the classification of Baysidc Road as a collector road and County' Road 19 as a minor arterial. Septic testing was completed for the three lot subdivision of the White property and may- still be valid for the current division. The preliminary plat application will require complete septic testing for both principal and alternate sites for Lots 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8, 9. 10. 11 and Alternate septic sites must be confirmed for l ots 6 and 7. There are 5+ acres of designated wetlands within both parcels. Review Exhibits B. J and K. There are no DNR protected wetlands but the National Wetlands Inventory includes a wetland at the northwest comer that was not designated in the earlier White subdivision. This wetland must be designated by drainage easements. The developer will be required to provide retention areas tor stormwater and the treatment of sediment from development. Runoff from the development cannot be directly routed into designated weUands but must be rerouted through retention ponds. As with earlier subdivision reviews, the National Wetlands Act will require the deveU>per to complete a soils delineation smdy and file the necessary permits with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Corps of Engineers. Review Exhibit I. Based on the 1" = 200' scale, it would appear that Lot 3 does not meet the required width to the rear of the front street setback, shown at 130 ’ width. Lot 3 is also a throuch lot. /Miy accessors struerures would require a conditiorial use permit. It is doubtful w hether Lot 5 has adequate area for building and septic needs ba^d on the need to Th*. smicture must be 26 trom the defined edge of i Ae area and lnbslTrequi^ents"for the RR-IB zoning district. The front yard would become