Laserfiche WebLink
PP, North Meadows Addition Page 3 <br /> May 20, 1993 <br /> • county ditch. The drainage area north of the proposed road <br /> flows to the west and ultimately ends up in the county ditch. <br /> Mr. Townsend and Mr. Mealio were also concerned that an <br /> existing culvert located in the vicinity of the bubble of the <br /> cul-de-sac, is proposed to be removed. The grading and <br /> drainage plans will have to accommodate drainage from their <br /> property and also blend the slopes from the proposed road to <br /> their properties together. Mr. Maurer is aware of the <br /> neighbors concerns and will be able to adequately address them <br /> when he reviews the drainage and grading plans . <br /> The developer has also provided a 30 foot easement from the <br /> center line of County Ditch 1 on the north boundary of the <br /> plat. Staff believes the existing wetlands in the plat will <br /> provide adequate storage for the increased run-off from the 8 <br /> rooftops and the proposed street, with the County ditch acting <br /> as an overflow. This increase run-off should be calculated so <br /> the effects can be reviewed by the County for their approval . <br /> The developer will also have to work with the County Auditors <br /> office regarding a re-distribution of the ditch assessment onto <br /> the individual lots in the plat. This will need to be <br /> accomplished prior to recording the plat. Otherwise, the <br /> existing wetlands in the plat will remain undisturbed. <br /> 410 VARIANCES <br /> A. ROAD <br /> A variance on the maximum length of a dead-end road was <br /> advertised. Since that time, the City Council has passed <br /> an ordinance amendment which eliminates the need for <br /> variances to exceed the maximum length of a dead-end. <br /> Staff anticipates this ordinance being published prior to <br /> the plat being finalized. <br /> The City allows exceptions to the maximum length of a <br /> dead-end under certain criterion. Staff feels this road <br /> meets those criterion. Further, the road proposed in the <br /> plat is eliminating most of an existing private road. <br /> B. LOT SIZES <br /> All the lots in question meet the minimum lot width, <br /> however, Lots 1-4 , Block 2, are all below the City' s <br /> minimum 2 . 5 acre requirement. Staff refers the Planning <br /> Commission to Section 900 . 40 for the five standards for <br /> reviewing a variance request. The developer offers the <br /> following as her rationale why a variance should be <br /> approved: <br /> S1 . When she bought Block 2, it was listed as, and taxes <br /> were paid as, a 10 . 3 acre parcel . When an actual <br /> survey was done, it was discovered the parcel was <br />