06/13/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 17 Staff indicated local streets within the preliminary plat have been designed with a 60 -foot right - of -way, consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. There are three cul -de -sacs within the project, necessitated by existing development and wetlands. The cul -de -sacs have a 60 -foot radius as required. Staff explained the only issue with the street design was the 105 offset of Street A and Street D. The Subdivision Ordinance discourages offsets less than 125 feet. The potential to align Street A and Street D should be given further consideration. Staff indicated the subdivision included 70 single - family lots with an average size of 16,150 square feet within five blocks. The subdivision Ordinance limits block length to not more than 1,500 feet. The lengths of Blocks 1 and 2 exceed 1,500 feet, due to existing development, wetland and drainage areas, and limitations on access to Main Street. Staff explained the R -1 District minimum lot size was 10,800 squar lots listed below did not meet the minimum lot area requirement. revised such that all lots have at least 10,800 square feet of are wetlands, water bodies, parks, easements, rights -of -way an Block 1: Lot 7 and Lot 14. Block 2: Lots 5,10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20. Block 3: Lots 3, 4, and 5. Staff stated lots within the R -1 District mu corner lots) and minimum depth of 135 meet or exceed these provisions. d able land. The y plat must be drainage ways, nimum width of 80 feet (100 feet for or double frontage lots). All of the lots State stated there were four exis i �'1e -f.- ily dwellings within the project area. The submitted plans did not ide • s = a are to remain or those that may be removed. The proposed subdivision desi . • +een 1 id out such that each dwelling would be located on an individual lot within required ' acks. There was a detached accessory building in the area of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 st b removed as it overlayed lot lines and encroaches into the right -of -way. Staff explained the subjec' site included several large stands of trees throughout the property. A tree preservation plan had been submitted that indicates trees to be protected and those to be removed as part of the development. Trees to be preserved were a large stand in the southwest corner, a stand in the northeast corner and a small stand in the northwest corner of the property. All other significant trees were to be removed from the central areas of the property as part of the grading plan and development of the site. Staff indicated the existing conditions sheet and grading plan identify a 0.74 -acre wetland in the center of Block 2. This wetland area was not to be disturbed as part of development of this project. The wetland would be included within a drainage and utility easement that also covered drainage ponds adjacent to the wetland. Staff stated the applicant had submitted grading and drainage plans for the proposed subdivision. The grading plan was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.