05-15-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2022 Mav 11 1995 Page 2 E - Gustafson Report 5/3 95 F - Weckman Report 5/4/95 G - McMillan Letter 4/21/95 H-1-3 Council Minutes 4/10/95 1-1-5 Portion of Wetland Delineation Report J - Current Access Plan K-1-4 Septic Site Plans L - Preliminar>' Plans Status of Application The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan proposal for the subdivision of this property at their March meeting. The Planning Commission concurred ^t based on the umquc physical features of this land that it would be best to grant a vanance for the four-lot plat ^ not require an internal road. The Planning Commission encouraged the use of the City s driveway to the south of the property for a single curb cut to serve two lots^ At t^ April 10th meeting of the Council, members reviewed applicant’s request to increase the residen^l use o the Citv’s driveway now serving two residential units. Council chose to amend the Code ra^r than g^nt itself variances also recognizing the City’s intent to keep the roadway a low profile/rural-type road in an attempt to maintain the preserve park atmosphere to tlw east. M Lady noted above, the applicant has agreed to make any ‘*«P*?'^emen« to the ^ on wlutever Code is in effect at the time of final approval of the plat (^bit B). Applw^t should be advised at this point that if the Code is not amended and *** allow an additional residential user on this driveway that applicant will be required to provide an internal road to serve all four properties - not a popular option. An internal road would require a more intense and lengthy review by both the Watershed District and other agencies of the State because of the major fill of wetlands, to proposal, the applicant proposes to fill less than 400 s.f. of the weUand areas District (LGU for City) will not require a permit. Staff has been advised by the Watershed th« the only information they will seek from this applicant with the current propowl is to review tte acmal driveway construction as it encroaches the wetland areas. The ^ . review the same grading plan. Members should also be aware that if the 400 s.f. is n exceeded that mitigation is not required. Septic Please review Weekman’s memo. Exhibit F. He advises that all septic sites are approved and meet the necessary setback from all wetlands and lot lines. He asks that the existing wel on Lot 1 be properly abandoned before the septic system is installed. Staff would the well be abandoned prior to final plat approval, to reviewing the septic site plans. Ei^bite K-1-4 the site plan for Lot 4 (K-4) shows the septic test area close to the east boundary of