Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File ^2020 <br />May 3. 1995 <br />Page 3 <br />The Engineer has asked for a utility easement at a 15’ width along the north side lot line <br />of Lot 1 to allow future sewer service to Church property. Review Exhibit 1-2. What of the <br />impact on mature trees? The property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service <br />Area. The Engineer is asking the City to consider future needs. <br />The accessory structure on Lot 3 no longer will achieve credit of the residence on the <br />property and upon final plat approval becomes a non-conforming structure. To be consistent <br />with previous policy, the City would ask that the structure be removed within one year of final <br />plat approval date if a building permit has not been issued for new residential construction on <br />Lot 3. The existing residence on Lot 2 may either be a future part of the principal residence <br />or may remain as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen. The <br />structure can never function as a separate residential unit because the property lacks the area <br />requirement for a non-rental guest house use. The owner will be asked to execute a covenant <br />if the structure remains as a separate accessory structure to alert all future owners that the <br />structure could never serve as an independent residential unit. <br />Review Exhibit F, the Environmental Specialist with Schoell and Madson has confirmed <br />that there are no Type 1 or 2 wetlands within the property. The only wet area would be the <br />drainageway that intersects Lot 1. <br />During the sketch plan review, Planning Commission members discussed the removal of <br />the existing cul-de-sac and driveway. Note applicant has asked to keep the cul-de-sac ^^^^ause <br />of unique landscape features. The cul-de-sac is located within both Lots 1 and 2 and will <br />receive major impact v/hen the sewer line is installed. It is questionable whether applicanf would . <br />really want to retain the cul-de-sac once the property is offered for development. In fact, it may <br />prove to be a problem for the future owners of Lots 1 and 2. Because of its location o ” the <br />property, it would never serve as a nimaround for either of the properties. Applicant should be <br />questioned on this point. <br />The Planning Commission was concerned with the issue of tree removal with the <br />proposed location of the future residence building on Lot 1. Please refer to Exhibits B and <br />1&2 of the 32 large mature trees, only 5 would be removed. Applicant wants to reassure <br />Planiiing Commission that this would not be a matter of clear cutting and that the value of the <br />property is based on the existence of those trees not their removal. <br />The issue of an internal road is not an issue for staff in this review as two of the lots are <br />served by a private road and meet the required lot width along that private road. I have <br />enclosed a copy of the final resolution that approved the Stielow Addition plat. 'Hjere is nothing <br />in the resolution that stated the existing driveway to Lot 6 was to be closed off. A curb cu <br />exists with no record of any safety issues involving the use of that roadway when there was a <br />residence on the property. The driveway will still only serve one residential unit. Staff would <br />suggest that there w-ould be more of a negative impact by requiring an internal road wi <br />turnaround on this property when adequate and safe access is already provided.