Laserfiche WebLink
� r � <br /> 15-3739 <br /> June 10 2015 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> Key elements of the revisions can be summarized as follows: <br /> - The westerly lot in the Big Woods area has been eliminated, also eliminating the need for a <br /> driveway and driveway outlot to access it. <br /> - A thiurd lot with tested septic sites has been locate,a abutting Hunter Drive, and the <br /> originally proposed lots on Hunter have been slightly reshaped. <br /> - The cu]-de-sac serving the main grouping of lots has been moved appro�cimately 100' to <br /> the south, atlowing more trees to be preserved. <br /> - Proposed lot boundazies in the easterly portion of the development have been slightly <br /> altered to better accommodate draina.ge and to better preserve significant trees. <br /> The draft covenants have been revised such that the number of Significant Trees allowed to be <br /> removed from the Big Woods Lots (Lots 5-6-7-8) without requiring 2-£or-1 replacement is <br /> reduced from 18 to 15. <br /> Additionally, proposed d.riveway locations have been shown on the preliminary plat drawings <br /> (highlighted on the north and south detail sheets). It appears that the suggested driveway <br /> locarions do not conflict with septic sites or anticipated wetland buffers, with the exception of <br /> Lots 2, 5 aud 8. On Lot 5, the proposed driveway is shown in the narrow gap between primary <br /> and alternate drainfield sites on a side-slope of 25%. This driveway location likely will require <br /> cutlfill on either side which may have negative impacts on the septic system and vice-versa. <br /> This driveway location needs to be reconsidered. On Lots 2 and 8, the driveways appeaz to have <br /> less than the required 10' separation from the sewage treatment mound locations. Applicant is <br /> advised to have his septic designer and surveyor coordinate on reviewing other options for these <br /> driveways. <br /> The plans indicate proposed grading for building pads on Lots 3-4-5. The applicant should <br /> confum that the intent is creation of actual pads that would result in `new existing grades' for <br /> measurement of house height and nutnber of staries calculations. <br /> It has been confirmed that the MCWD has not approved the boundazies of the we�lands as shown <br /> on the preliminary plat drawings (see Ezhibit �. Preliminary plat approval by the City Council <br /> should not be granted until the wetland boundaries have been confirmed, as this could have <br /> impacts on the snbdivision layout. <br /> Although arriving too iate to be included in the May 18 PC packet, the developer's <br /> environmental consultant has responded to the City Engineer's comments dated 5/13/15. Please <br /> review Eghibit K. <br /> Comments regarding the various elements of this preliminary plat appearing in the May 18 staff <br /> report continue to apply,but have not been included in this memo for the sake of brevity. <br /> items for Comsideration <br /> 1. The revised plans {received on June 8) have not been reviewed by the City Engineer as of <br /> this writing. A review by the City Engineer will be necessary before the preliminary plat <br />