Laserfiche WebLink
#04-3007 <br />July 15.2004 <br />Pace 2 <br />Ne«v Inrormation <br />MCWD has approved the wetland delineation as presented. <br />The City Engineer has provided comments regarding the stormwater management implications of <br />amending the wetland map and allowing the lOt to be buildable. His recommendations include <br />expansion of the drainage easement to the 1012' elevation »*nntour, which further reduces the <br />buildable envelope, expansion ofponding to tlie w cst of Uie ditch easement to pro\ ide w ater quality <br />and rate control benefits; and the lowest floor elevation to be no low er than elev. 1014.0* <br />3.The City Anomey has indicated that although the Code docs not specifically prolubit w etland map <br />amendments, w e should dctemunc w hether the ,\1C\VT) w ould oppose or support the buildahility, <br />assuming all required setbacks and buffers to the remaimng delineated w etland arc met As of this <br />writing w'c are awaiting word from the MCWD <br />Joltn Smyth, the City’s wetlands consultant, lias mdicatcd he bcliev cs there is currently no w etland <br />basis to deny buildability ufihc siie, since the ftlliiig occurred long before the Wetland Conservation <br />Act W'ciU into effect in 1992. The fonne’’ w etland w nu'd not he required to be n stored under WCA <br />rules nor undci current City ordinances. The area not delineated as wetland contains many mat are <br />trees A driveway access could be established to sene the site w ithoi.1 encroaching the delineated <br />w etland or the existing proposed drainage easements <br />Construction of a residence on this site w ill be severely constrained by environmental factors A house can <br />likely be designed to fit the revised buildable envelope w ithout encroaching outside that envelope, subject to <br />no fdling allow ed below the 1012 ’ elevation. After factonng in the City Engineer s recommendations, the <br />buildable envelope is depicted on Exhibit C. <br />Staff Kccommcndation <br />This Item w as tabled w iihoui discussion at the May meeting. Staff reconunends that the public hearing be <br />held to determine w hether the surrounding property ow ners hav c any comments regarding the lot area <br />vanance or the nature of the property. Further. Planning Commission should discuss the Issues for <br />Consideration in the May 10 memo. <br />If Planning Commission concludes that the City's official w etland maps should be modified to match the <br />current w etland boundaries, and if PC concludes that the lot area vanance is supported by substantial <br />hardship ( "Undue hardship .. means the propert\’m guesfion cannot be put to u reasonable use if <br />used under the conditions allowed fry the offictal controls, the piigbi of the landowner is due to <br />circumsiances unique to the propert\' not created bv the landoMner. and the v''nance if framed ^^ lII <br />not alter the essential character ofthe localirv) then any motion for approval should as a mimmum be <br />subject to the followmg conditions;