08-17-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

, � ��sna Aug ust 12,2015 Page 5 af B Easements Needed The proposed road extension should be platted as a public road. Standazd perimeter drainage and utility easements will be required a.tong all property boundaries in the plat as well as Conservation and Flowage Easements over aIl delineated wetlands and drainageways. For discussian is whether there should be covenants or easements established to protect the various significant tree stands identified in the Conservation Design report— again, see City Engineer's comments. Park/Trail Easement/Fees or Dedication Needed Although the Park Commission has not reviewed the proposed plat, it is anNcipated that no land £or a public pazk is required. The Community Management Plan does not identify any pzoposed trails along County Road 15; however,the properiy dces abut the Dakota Rail Regional Trail, and it may be worthy of discussion as to whether a trail connection corridor should be dedicated from the new cul-de-sac to the Trail for neighborhood use. Since three new building sites are being proposed, payment of the standard Pazk Dedication fee for 3 new building lots would be appropriate;the current fee is$5,550 per lot or a total of$16,650. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements Creation of the public road extension will require stormwater management measures, and those proposed include a stormwater pond located wifhin Lot 1 as well as road curbing and stormsewer piping to convey runoff to the pond. Depending on the final amount of impervious surface associaxed with this development, additional stormwater management facilities may be required. Ponding azeas up to the outlet level are not creditable as dry buildable azea--it would appeaz this is not an issue for Lot 1. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, resulting in a fee for 3 lots @$7680not=$23,040. I,at 4 which is further subdividable will not be cha�rged the stormwater fee at this time. The stormwater management plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer and a nuxnber af concerns have been raised requiring further evaluation {see Eghibit E for comments regatdi.ng stormwater management). All stormwater management sha11 be subject to MCWD requirements and approvals. Wetlands on Site antUor Impacted The wetland boundary deliraeation report has been submitted for review and approval by the MCWD; approval has not been received as of this writing. Within the property boundaries, no wetlands are proposed to filled; but the small wetland wi#hin the existing Heritage Lane right-of- way will be completely eliminated by road conshuction. It is not clear as to v��hether or how this filling is proposed to be mitxga�ted. The applicant's engineer should confirm with the MC W D the ciassification of the wetlands with respect to required buffer widths. Buffers of 35' and 50' aze depicted on the plans; however, if 75' buffers are ultimately required for any of the wet�ands, that could be a significant impact on the site layout. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement ovez each of the wetlands as well as impose standard wetland setback requirements; in the case of all wetlands on this site,the required structure setback will be 1 Q feet landward of the edge of the wetland buffers, but in no case less than 35 feet.