09-21-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� �� ' 15-3774 September 77,2015 Pege 2 of 3 Planning Lommission tabled the application, advising the applicant to provide additional information, wbile reaching a conclusion on certain issues. Their comments can be sutnmarized as follows: 1) Applicant must confirm with MCWD the required buffer locations and widths for a11 wetlands on the properry. 2) Applicant to identify on the preliminary plat drawing the areas where significant tree stands identified through the Conservation Desi� process should be preserved via the establishment of private covenants. 3) An updatedJcorrected Conservation Design Report should be submitted. Address invasive species controUmanagement for areas other than wetlands. 4) No trail connection to the Dakota Trail is required, as the FQxhill neighborhood does not support it. 5} Leagth of cul-de-sac road eacceeding 1,004 feet is not a concern. � Since applicant desires that individual owners establish and grade their own driveway routes,it tnay be worthwhile to establish parameters to be adhered to,for instance,limiting the number of large trees that may be removed to accommodate driveways. 7) Applicant's engineer#o review bluf�analysis data with staff. 8) App2icant to review the desirab�lity or need for grading individual building pads in relation to establishing new existing grades where needed to allaw for walkouts. 9} Applicani's engineer to provide an analysis of the feasibility and impacts of establishing a usable temporary construction access (and permanent access} to these three lots fram Shoreline Drive rather than from Heritage Lane. This shou�d include a map of a potential route showi.ng the impacts to the bluff, to trees, to existing home and other structures on the property, impacts on the exishng driveway, etc. and safety for vehicles ingressing/egressing Shoreline Driive at the existing driveway entrance. Planning Commission suggested that we should"exhaust a11 options"in determining whether there are altematives to the use of Heritage Lane at least during the road constructian process. The neighbors have met with Public Works Direc�or&City Engineer Adam Edwards,who has expressed that the access via Heritage Lane would be supported by the City. New Information Submitted The applicant has submitted a number o�'items in order to address the issues enumerated above. Please review Eahibit A-1 which addresses each of the above nine bullet points snd sutnmarizes the changes shown on the xevised and updated plans appearuig iin E�hibite B-1 tLru B-4. Staff would briefly note the following: - Wetland buffer widths axe canfirmed and de�icted. These do not appear to cause any proposed.lot to be unbwildable. - Proposed Tree Preservation Areas (TPAs) are depicted on the preliminary plat drawings. - Updated Conservation Design Report submittec�. - Proposed driveway locations are depicted. - Minor grading of building pads depicted for proposed Lots 1 and 2. - Staff has reviewed bluff analyses and concuts with applicanYs bluff depictions,