12-14-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:November 13, 1992 Subject #1762 Paul Boyke, 793 North Ferndale Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Survey Exhibit B - Driveway/Grading/Drainage Plans/Topography Exhibit C - Staff Sketch - Outlots/Flag Lot Options Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/S2 Exhibit E - Memo & Exhibits of 10/16/92 Discussion This item was tabled at your October 19th meeting pending submittal of additional information. All required information has now been submitted. There is one minor revision to lot line locations since the October 16th memo, namely that the narrow "flagpole" driveway corridor for Lot 2 has been flared to better accommodate the driveway. Drainage Concerns Addressed Applicant'b ngineer has completed the necessary topography work and provi< . a grading and drainage plan that addresses staff's concern.,. The driveway serving Lot 2 is actually beneficial to the extent that it redirects drainage westward rather than its existing course southwestward across the alternate drainfield site of the neighbor to the south. Further, the culvert which currently directs drainage towards Lot I's alternate site will be angled and a swale will be developed along the north side of the new driveway to better protect the drainfield sites on Lot 1. In Lot 2, a section of culvert will allow for drainage to be redirected away from the neighboring property to the south and after crossing the driveway will be swaled to the northwest, where it will daylight outside the 0-75' "no grading zone" established by the Shoreland Regulations. Proposed Driveway The flaring of the flagpole for Lot 2 has allowed placement of the new driveway to eliminate any significant filling adjacent to the south lot line. Coupled with a lowering of the existing driveway, the new driveway can be developed within Lot 2, although it is a tight fit. The 2’ retaining wall could be eliminated entirely if the driveway entrance could be shifted further north, however, this would require either an easement over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2, or creating a wider flare in Lot 2's flagpole which reduces Lot I's current 10' abutment of Outlot A (which abutment is necessary to establish the east line of Lot 1 as its front lot line for lot width measurement purposes). 1 I