Laserfiche WebLink
1• <br /> 15-3774 <br /> August 12,2015 <br /> Page 7 of 8 <br /> the Tanager Lake Bridge does place some limitations for the size of boats that can navigate through <br /> it. Whether such a dock could be esta.blished is outside the scope of this subdivision review but <br /> could be taken up be the applicant via a sepazate applicarion under Municipal Code Section 94-36 <br /> thru 94-38, "Joint Use of Lake Faciliries". LMCD approval likely will also be required. <br /> Summary of Issues for Discussion <br /> l. Does developer intend to do any grading of individual driveways or builcl.ing pads as part <br /> of the initial development improvements7 <br /> 2. The impact of MCWD-requ.ired wetland buffers is significant, especiaily for the pofiential <br /> house site in Lot 1. If 75' buffers are required for c�rtain wetlands, the impact may be <br /> more critical. <br /> 3. The proposed public cul-de-sac mad length of 1604 feet serving 13 homes exceeds City <br /> standards,but is similar to other cul-de-sacs in Qron�. Are there any feasible altematives <br /> for this site? <br /> 4. Applicant should address the potential conc�rns expressed by the City Engincer with the <br /> cul-de-sac design and location. The unpact on the adjoining properties of the road <br /> extension as well as what should happen with the existing cul-de-sac need discussion. <br /> 5. For discussion is whether there shouid be covenants ar easements established to protect the <br /> various significant tree stands identified in the Coz�servataon Design report. <br /> 6. Should a tz'aii connection corridor be dedicated and/or constructed from the new cul-de-sac <br /> to the Dakota Trail for neighborhood use? <br /> 7, Wetland boundary and buffer width confirmations from MCWD should be subnutted prior <br /> to moving this application forwazd to Council. <br /> 8. The Conservation Design Report as submitted appears to be incomplete and contains errors <br /> — a complete version should be provided for review prior ta Council review of the <br /> preliminary plat. <br /> 9. Applicant should address the many engineering items of concern noted in the City <br /> Engineer's cflmtnent letter. <br /> 10. Are there any other concerns that need to be addressed? <br /> Sta££Recammendation <br /> Applicant should be advised to addxess the items detailed in the City Engineer's comments, and <br /> address the issues for discussion noted above. <br /> Planning Commission should hold the Public Hearing and receive comments from the public. Staff <br /> has had verbal communication from parties in the Foxhill neighbarhood,anc€we are aware that the <br /> applicant has met with neighbarhood repz�esentatives. <br /> Staff wauld recommend that the application be tabled to al�ow the applicant to address the issues. <br /> Another option would be to forward to Council subject to applicant addressing the noted items <br /> prior to Conncil review of the preliminary pla� <br />