10-27-1993 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Engineering issues create the greatest concern in this proposal. Due to the grades and the wetlands, buildable on many of the lots will severely restricted. The developers are . cautioned that variances for setbacks resulting from the constraints of the lots are not likely to be considered favorably. The developers are proposing to create a holding pond in the southwest portion of the site. In addition, there will be mitigation requirements resulting from wetland alterations necessary to grade the lots. Each of these, as well as all of the drainage and grading issues must be reviewed by the City Engineer and the Watershed District for compliance to local and Watershed regulations. Utility issues are also of concern in the proposal. The plan suggests utility access from Maplewood. However, the City Public Works Director has indicated that access is available from Little Canada lines in LaBore and County Road D. As a result, he is recommending a revision in the utility design. Even if the City were agreeable, where Little Canada utility access is reasonably available, it may be difficult to come to a joint powers agreement with Maplewood. The plat drawing shows Park dedication to be made in the southern area of the plat under the NSP easement, including a portion of the wetland area. The Park Commission should review and comment on the land dedication proposal as laid out. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are a number of issues which remain to be resolved in the development of this plat. However, few of them are likely to affect the lot layout. Utility access from either City should not directly impact the design of the lots, although easements for utility access will be altered. The Park dedication issue is the only item which could result in a design change. Any approvals granted to this plat will have to be made contingent on the engineering reviews as noted in the body of this report. The Planning Commission should make clear the issues it feels need to be addressed in this regard. An option for the Planning Commission would be the tabling of former preliminary plat approval until utility and parks issues could be resolved. In this way, the developers could return for preliminary and final plat approvals in October. This schedule would not result in a longer process since Final Plat approval will require October meetings, anyway. If this option is chosen, the Planning Commission should comment as thoroughly as possible on any issues it believes that the developers should take into account for its revised plat drawings. 2 Page 18