05-18-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

15-3720� ` 11 MarCh 2015 Page 8 of 9 ParklTrail Easement/Fees or Dedication Needed The CMP indica.tes that a future trail is proposed along County Road 6; theretore an easement along the road for trail purposes should be explored. Additionally, as 10 new building sites are being proposed, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee for 14 new building lats would be required - current rate is $5,550 per new lot, for a total fee of $55,SOQ. Per City code, the subdivision proposal should be reviewed by the Park Commission. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee for 10 new lots at$7,680 per lot, (pending anticipated Council action on May 26 to adopt the new fee shucture). Tota1 fee would be 576,800. The preliminazy plat indicates a stormwater NURP Pond to be created within Lot 5, Block 1. This ponding area will have to be covered by an easement and taken out of the dry bui�ldable acreage for that lot� All stormwater management shall be subject to MCWD requirements and approvals. Utility Loc�tions and Availahility The properties will be served by private on-site septic systems and private wells. Full soil testing and preliminary system designs have been completed for 5-bedroom homes. Final design for each site will be completed once the specific house sizes are known. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted A wetland delineation report has been submitted to the MCWD for review and approval. Applicant should provide the City with evidence that the MCWD has approved the wetland boundaries - if any of the boundaries change, significant impacts ta the plat layout could resul� The MCWD will be involved in establishment of mitigation requirements if needed, and wili also be establishing appropriate wetland buffers for the development. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over each of the wetlands as well as impose standard wetland setback requirements. Woodland Impacts & Conservation Design The developer submitted a Conservation Design Report(see Exhibit C). The City Engiu�eer has indicated that the Report is lacking specific elements and should be amended to include those elements. Perhaps most critical, as noted earlier in this report, is the iumportance of establishing, for the portion of the property that is being developed, what elements are being preserved; how they are being preserved; why they are being preserved; and wha.t is the basis for these decisions to preserve certain elements and not others. Planning Commission may wish ta have applicant discuss his basis for the decisions made to date. It may be important to note that other than within the context of the Consezvation Design review process, there is no specific code section that would disaJ.low removal of trees on the property more than 75' from the lake, Big Woods ar not. The elements of the Conservation Design ordinance require somewhat subjective conclusions (see Section 78-1635 - page 4 of the Conservation Design code attached as Exhibit �• �****�*��***�*****�� Planning Commission rs urged to carefully review the Canservation Design Rez�ort(Exhibit C} as well as the Drafr Covenants (Exhibit G-6) and the public comments (E�rhibits.�. ,�***�**�,�**,�*******�*�*�,�