03-16-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■' . vw-’^.sv -•■)■- .. »^'- Zoning Pile #1721 March 13» 1992 Page 5 m unplugged the culvert under the railroad track. Applicant's surveyor has' already recorded the effects on the Browns Bay wetland. (Review Exhibit H, on 3-9-92, surveyor confirmed 932.1 on north side of track, 930.8 at south side of track.) Access/Road The City shall ask for a 33' dedication of right-of-way for Pox Street. The private road shall be designated as an outlet Review Exhibits M, N and 0. Private road construction will not 1 reguire a separate conditional use permit or variance as the road will not encroach the wetlands shown on both sides of the roadway at the 932.3 elevation. The road is shown as an urban section with a 28' width measured from the Inside of the curb. The road has been laid out to take advantage of the gentler slopes and has attempted to minimize the removal of several mature trees. A 5' boulevard is shown on either side. It is the policy of the City to require all lots to be served by one single curb cut via a private road. Staff would add that there is adequate sight distance at both private road and driveway at west. It is staff's understanding that the applicant will seek special consideration and ask that the western drive be allowed to remain. Applicant's representative should be asked to conjuent on this as City has received nothing in writing requesting the use of the most western access. As no wetland area is proposed to be encroached by the construction of the private road, the DNR nor the MCWD will require special permitting. The MCWD review of this subdivision will deal solely with surface water management issues as a result of this development. -v‘.” Issues for Consideration It would appear the only variance sought by the applicant is the required 200' of lot width at the shoreline. Lot 2 with adequate lot width can be adjusted to provide the additional width for Lot 1. Planning Commission should include this as a condition of subdivision approval. mm I Applicant must also provide direction on issue of guest house. If septic cannot be located and the existing system defined, applicant has one year to either connect to existing principal system (if adequate to sustain additional use)^or ii^stall ^ewrir . . . . . . . • -I.-system and pro^de additional testing for alternate septic system. Applicant may decide to discontinue use of structure as guest house and proceed with required removal of inside plumbing. Should applicant be asked to file a separate Conditional Dse Permit for guest house that has existed on propoerty for 40+ years as the City required in recent application of another resident? '.‘(i 1 1 i i ,U«rJ ; '• ■3 m