09-20-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Zoning 1-ile #1862 September 17, 1993 Page 3 adds that the ditches along the private road cul-de-sac and Watertown Road be set at least 2.5 below proposed center line street grade. Proposed elevations along ditches must be altered to retlect this. He also notes that the septic site on Lot 7 shown at an elevation ot 1027 must be protected by requiring that the existing pond on Lot 8 be maintained at a high water level ot 1024 with an outlet ditch at 1023.5 to set normal water level. After reviewing Gustafson report, staff contacted the surveyor to request the necessary hvdraulic calculations to determine site runoff before and alter development. The final calculations shall provide the basis for the accurate sizing of the pond and the height or depth of the berms alone the east side. The surveyor provided the necessary calculations to the engineer earlier this week. Gustafson states that he will provide an updated report either to be included in your packets on Friday or to be presented by staff at your meeting. Our concern is that Lot 4 maintain 2 acres of dry. Lot 4 is now shown right at 2 acres. If the pond is to be expanded and lot lines shifts must be made,as the majority of lots are already at the 2 acre minimum dry buildable, this may result in the loss of one lot. Applicant is advised to commence the permitting process with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Applicant ’s engineer must provide' culvert sizing and grades on grading and drainage plan. There is no information on the outlet control of the pond that is to restrict flow so that there is enough storage for 100 year rainfall event. Hydraulic calculations must be provided reflecting the pond volume, high water level and peak flows. Road/Access. Based on the Planning Commission ’s directives at the time of the sketch plan review and the clear directives of the ordinance and Comp Plan (review E.xhibit M and N), the applicant was advised of the need to provide a future access corridor to the west. Both applicant and owner objected strongly to the City ’s requirement for the future extension corridor claiming an impact on the total number of lots and the homestead parcel. Loi 8, to be sold to owner ’s son. Review E.xhibit D, Mr. Suess’ letter and exhibits. Mr. Suess’ objections reflect the same concerns raised by neighboring property owners when City sought future extension corridors at Golden View Silver View and Woodhaven Drive. No residential owner want a through road. The concern is for potential traffic with a through road where residents purchased homes lo enioy the privacy and less intense use of private roads with cul-de-sac. Although not noted in Mr Suess, Jr.’s letter, there was also a concern with potential diminution in property values tor lots that would be located on future through roads. This would appear to have not impacted the Golden View Drive or Silver View Drive neighborhoods that have been hilly developed m less than five years. Exhibit F is a survey of adjacent residents who also oppose the potential corridor linking Golden View with the private road created in the Suess and Hallson properties.