Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 10/23/1989

Home Browse Search

-2- We understand that width variances are sometimes granted for lots located on cul-de-sacs. It may rtell be, for example, that because this willingness to grant variances is known that the cul-de-sac for Lots 11, 12 and 13 is proposed. A cul-de-sac is thus a way to increase the number of lots by "getting around" the width requirement. A quick look at the Preliminary Plat suggests it is unnecessary. Outlot C can be extended to Leaf Street, either through Outlot B or at some other point. Eliminating a cul-de-sac accords with the provisions of Section 11.32 of the City's Subdivision Regulation, which states that "[c]ul-de-sacs should be discouraged." 3. In connection with the overdevelopment of the Proposed Project, we are concerned about the probable increase in the rate of runoff, and the degradation of the quality of runoff, into Lake Minnetonka. The Planning Commission should require the implementation of procedures which will ensure that the rate and quality of flowage off the Proposed Project will be in compliance with all relevant rules and regulations promulgated by the Minnehana Creek Watershed District and the City. In part because runoff passes through the property of some of us, we would like to review the Storm Water Management Plan and Erosion Control Plan as soon as they are submitted to the Planning Commission for review. 4. The City should insist, either through conservation easements or by other means, that the Proposed Project p.•eserve all existing wetlands and low areas We oppose any flood plain alteration, wetland alteration or dredging which may be encompassed by the Proposed Project. We note that Lake Minnetonka is generally thought to be 3 to 4 feet below its normal level. It is reasonable to think that this has an effect on the water level of existing ponds, wetlands and low areas of the Proposed Project. It seems to us that the Preliminary Plat prepared by Messrs. Coffin b Gronberg, Inc. may not reflect these areas as they are under more normal conditions. The City should insist either through conservation easements or other means that all wetlands and low areas are preserved as they would be in "normal" or even "flood" condition. This should include strict setback requirements --from "normal" or preferably "flood" condition --for development of property adjacent to these areas. The initial Preliminary Plat does not show the required setback lines with respect to the wetlands and low areas. The Planning Commission should require all subsequent plots to do SO. Outlot A which bisects a low area should be relocated.