Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1946 July 14, 1994 Page 2 Review Exhibits B and I. In earlier sketch plan and subdivision reviews of both parcels, access locations to the property were reviewed by the County. The one proposed in Option 2 is an approved access location. The private 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 connecting the Armstrong property at the south. Already concluded in the earlier reviews of the White subdivision, a future western access to North Shore Drive will be provided via the Armstrong property because of the configuration of the wetland. As the wetland approaches the Armstrong 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. Access 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 Bayside Road for the White portion of the property as the 33' dedication was already completed with the earlier Bayview Farms two lot plat, review Exhibit E. Along County Road 19 or North 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 Bayside 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 12. Alternate septic sites must be confirmed for Lots 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 corner 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 for stormwater and the treatment of sediment from development. Runoff from the development cannot be directly routed into designated wetlands but must be rerouted through retention ponds. As with earlier subdivision reviews, the National Wetlands Act will require the developer to complete a soils delineation study and file the necessary permits with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Corps of Engineers. Review Exhibit I. Based on the l" = 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 through lot. Any accessory structures would require a conditional use permit. It is doubtful whether Lot 5 has adequate area for building and septic needs based on the need to provide a 7 5' setback for septic testing. The structure must be 26' from the defined edge of the wetland and 50' from street lot line. Lot 1 is considered a back lot. Lot 1 must meet 150% of the area and setback requirements for the RR-lB zoning district. The front yard would become