09-21-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� �s,�na nue��r�z,so�s Page 5 of 8 Easements Needed The proposed road extension should be platted as a public road. Standard perimeter drainage and �rtility easements will be required along all property boundaries in the plat as well as Conservation and Flowage Easements over all delineated wetlands and drainageways. For discussion is whether there should be covenants or easements established ta protect the various significant trce stands identified in the Conservation Des�gn report— agai.n, see City Engi.neer's comments. Park/Trail Essement/Fecs or Dedicahon Needed Atthough the Park Commission ha� not reviewed the proposed plat, it is anticipated that no land for a public park is required. The Comrnunity Management Plan does not icientify any proposed trails along County Road 15; hawever,the property does abut the Dakota Rail Regional Trail,and it may be worthy of discussion as to whether a trail connection corridor should be dedi.ca.ted from the new cul-de-sac to the Trail for neighborhood use. Since three new building sites aze being proposed, payment of the standard Park 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 Creatian of the public road extension will require stormwater management measures, and those praposed include a stormwater pond Iocated within Lot I as well as road curbing and stonnsewer piping to convey runoff to the pond. Depending on the fwal amount of nnperv�ous si�face associated with this developmen�, additional stormwater management facilities may be required. Ponding areas up to the outlet level are not creditable as dry buildable area—it would appear this is not an issue for Lt�t 1. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, resulting in a fee for 3 lots @$7680/lot=$23,040. Lot 4 which is fuzther subdividable will not be charged the stormwater fee at this time. The stormwater management plans have be�n reviewed by the City Engineer and a nutuber of coneerns have been raised requiring further evalttation (see Eahibit E for comments zegarding stormwater management). All stormwater management shall be subject to MCWD requirements �d appravals. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted The wetland boundary delineation report has been submitted for review and approval by the �VICWD; approval has not been received as of this writing. Within the property boundaries, no wetlands are pz�oposed to filled; but the small wetland within the exisking Heritage Lane right-of- way will be completely eliuminated by road construction. It is not clear as ta whether or how this filling is proposed to be mitigated. The applicant's engineer should confirm with the MCWD fhe classification of the wetlands with respect to required buffer widths. Buffers of 35' and 50' are depicted on the plans; however, if 75' buffers are ultimately required for any of the wetla�ads, that c�uld be a significant impact on the site Iayotrt. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over each of the wet�ands as weli as impose standard wetland setback requirements; in the case of all wetlands on this site,the required structure setback will be 14 feet landward of the edge o�'the wetland bu#�ers, but in no case less than 3 S feet.