Agenda - Council - 07/25/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Sidewalks: The Preliminary Plat does not include any indication of a sidewalk along the proposed extension of 168th Lane. There is an existing sidewalk on the north side of 168th Lane that ends at the intersection with Kamacite Street. There is an existing lot east of this intersection, but outside the boundaries of the Preliminary Plat, with no sidewalk. Staff is recommending that sidewalk be installed along the north side of the 168th Lane extension to the bulb of the cul-de-sac. Staff is open to discussion about credit for the sidewalk outside the boundary of the Plat. Note that the exhibit submitted for the aforementioned Variance request does now show a proposed sidewalk along the north side of 168th Lane, terminating at the cul-de-sac bulb. Utilities and Municipal Services: The applicant proposes connecting the new lots to city services, but has not specified whether the existing home will be connected. The assumption is that Lot 5, Block 2 would connect to city services as the Preliminary Plat does indicate that the private utilities would be abandoned, but does not include details pertaining to the connection of existing home. Grading and Drainage: The project will be subject to review by the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) regarding both wetlands and stomrwater. A LRRWMO permit will be required. The Applicant proposes to vacate a fairly large, existing drainage easement (130 feet by 115 feet in area) on the Subject Property. The Grading and Drainage Plans will need to clearly resolve how the stormwater would be addressed so that it does not negatively impact adjacent properties or move outside designated easements. The Applicant's civil engineer, Landform, has since proposed improvements to ensure proper drainage in a memo. This memo has been reviewed by the Engineering Staff as part of the Preliminary Plat process. Engineering staff feel that drainage has not been adequately solved and therefore does not support the vacation of the drainage and utility easement. The Applicant will need to continue to address and solve for drainage for the project before there would be support to vacate this easement. However, an approval of the Preliminary Plat can and should be contingent on the Applicant solving for stormwater management, including satisfactorily demonstrating that this easement is no longer necessary. Additionally, the current stormwater plan requires additional easements on the adjacent property. The City has not evidence at this point that the impacted Property Owner will support this additional easement. Landscaping: The plan narrative indicates that the amount of significant tree Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) inches removed will exceed the allowable threshold by twenty-two (22) inches. However, the narrative also notes that twenty-eight (28) inches will be planted to satisfy the replacement standards, which can include the base landscaping requirements of two (2) trees per lot. Deciduous trees shall be at lease one (1) inch in diameter and coniferous trees shall be at lease five (5) feet in height. Each lot is subject to City's topsoil requirement. Miscellaneous: It appears that Temporary Construction Easements will need to be obtained from the two (2) adjacent property owners west of the Property to address the removal of the existing cul-de-sac. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat contingent on compliance with the Staff Review Letter. There was public comment received during the Public Hearing. As noted previously, an adjacent property owner generally supported the development and the 'temporary' cul-de-sac as he would like to potentially develop his parcel in the future. Based on the Planning Commission comments, the Applicant has now submitted an application for a Variance to cul-de-sac size. One resident noted that he moved in to Brookfield 4th Addition, which had been vacant land adjacent to the Subejct Property at one time and therefore, he did not have any objection now to this proposed project. Finally, another property owner in the Brookfield 4th neighborhood had commented that they'd prefer to see the trees on the north side of the Subject Property preserved if possible. Alternatives: