Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PP, North Meadows Addition <br />May 20, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />VARIANCES <br /> <br />A. ROAD <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />B. LOT SIZES <br /> <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 /> <br />1. 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 />