10-25-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

«04-3007 July IS, 2004 Page 2 New Information 1. MCWD has approved the wetland delineation as presented. 2. The City Engineer has provided comments regarding the stormwater management implications of amending the wetland map and allowing the lot to be buildable. His recorrmiendations include expansion of the drainage easement to the 1012' elevation contour, which further reduces the buildable envelope; expansion of ponding to the west of the ditch easement to provide water quality and rate control benefits; and the lowest floor elevation to be no lower than elev. 1014.0'. 3 . Tlic City Attorney has indicated that althougli the Code docs not specifically prohibit wetland map amendments, we should detemtine whetlier the MCWD would oppose or support the buildability, assuming all required setbacks and buffers to the remaining delineated wetland are met. As of tins writing we are awaiting word from the MCWD. 4. Jolm Smyth, the City’s wetlands consultant, has indicated he believes there is cun cntly no wetland basis to deny buildability of the site, since the filling occuned long before the Wetland Conservation Act went into effect in 1992. The fonner wetland would not be reouired to be restored under WCA rules nor under current City ordinances. Tire area not delineated as wetland contains many mature trees. A driveway access could be established to serve the site without encroaching the delineated wetland or the existing/proposed drainage easements Construction of a residence on this site will be severely constrained by environmental factors. A house can likely be designed to fit the revised buildable envelope without encroaching outside that envelope, subject to no filling allowed below the 1012' elevation. After factoring in the City Engineer’s recommendations, the buildable envelope is depicted on Exhibit C. Staff Recommendation Tliis item was tabled without discussion at the May meeting. Staff recommends that the public hearing be held to determine whether the surrounding property owners have any comments regarding the lot area variance or the nature of the property. Further, Planning Commission should discuss the Issues for Consideration in the May 10 memo. If Planning Commission concludes that the City’s official wetland maps should be modified to match the current wetland boundaries, and if PC concludes that the lot area variance is supported by substantial hardship ( “Undue hardship "... means {he property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed bv the ofTicial controls, the plieht of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created bv the landowner, and the variance if erantedwill not alter the essential character of the, locality) then any motion for approval should as a minimum be subject to the following conditions; i