09-20-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1862 September 17, 1993 Page 2 il Comp Plin Sections Dealing with Rural Private Roads, Exhibit M. Review of subdivision application. Total area =19+ acres (.89 acres wet) Zoning District - RR-IB Lot Slandards/Co'nfiguration. The subd' vision proposes seven new lots and Lot 8 remains as the homestead parcel. The surveyor has provided two options of development on the preliminary plan (Exhibit O). One with an extensioii road to the west and one without. The hatched lines desigr»ate the future road corridor and the realignment of the shared lot lines of Lots 7 and 8. All lots are show-n meeting the minimum 2 acre dry buildable. Lots 5 and 6 adjacent to cul-de-sac area do not meet the required 200 ’ at the 50 ’ setback line, h will be necessary to grant width variances. This would be consistent when dealing with lots adjacent to cul-de-sac roadway. This would be the only instance when the City grants lot width variances at the time of subdivision. If extension corridor outlot is approved. Lot 6 would no longer need lot width variance. With the current proposal, the cul-de-sac would not be a temporary cul-de-sac and will still be needed for access to the three norhem lots. Grading/Drainage. Applicant and applicant’s consultants met with the City staff and the City Engineer prior to filing the formal plat in order to diccuss the major drainage issues that must be addressed with the subdivision review and the issue of a future extension road to the west. Review E.xhibit J, there were no designated wetlands within the subdivision but ponding areas have been created in the low arecs of the property as a major drainage way drains from the southwest to the northeast through this property. The majority of surface runoff drains into the Daniel’s Long Lake Heights Subdivision creating problems during wet seasons. There is a severe drainage problem at the southeast comer where drainage runs into Lot 13 and ponds. There are no drainage ditches along the north side of Watertown Road. One of the issues raised during the sketch plan review was whether the enlarged drainage and utility easement area alone the east side that would contain the extensive berming would be credited aeainst dry buildable^area of each lot. During an earlier three lot subdivision review of the property, the City had already approved the crediting of die area against the dr>' buildable. The berm width extends any where from 25’-35’ along the east boundary expanding wherever an attempt is made to save the trees along the east lot line. Review Exhibits H and O, Gustafson notes that the drainage swale along the east propeny line must be lowered to control runoff. He recommends extending the lO20f^ontour 50 ’ to the south and providing a 1021 elevation at the southeavit property corner. This will allow for a .5% grade within the ditch and an attempt to keep the ditch lower than Lots 12 and 13 in the Daniel’s Long Lake Heights Addition. He also