Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1901 <br />Januar>’ 14. 1994 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />The tollowing are classitied as tlirough lois and conditional use permits would be required <br />for any accessoiy structure installed at some future date; <br />Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1 all within the Dickey <br />parcel. <br />Two lots within the Coffin property achieve access via a 30’ private driveway outlot. <br />Lots 6 and 7. Members should review the recent code amendment. Section 11.31. Subd. 5 (C) <br />(1) entitled Applicability". Please review applicant's addendum (Fxhibit B) that addresses the <br />need for the back lot configuration. Has developer supported the need for back lots? Section <br />B of code specifically states that back lot configurations should not be used when dividing a <br />large parcel into numerous lots and may not be used as a tool for the convenience of the <br />developer. The question to ask the developer - can cul-de-sacs be extended further south? If <br />you are satisfied with the presentation of facts and findings, then Planning Commission may <br />wish to recommend approval of the back lot configuration. If back lots are approved, then <br />surveyor must redesignate setback areas. The north/south lot line would be front yard and not <br />side yard as shown. Front and rear yards would now be designated at 75 ’ and side yards at 45 ’. <br />House location on Lot 7 would have to be moved 5 feet to the south. House site on Lot 6 would <br />satisfy the 75 ’ setback. <br />All future improvements shall be subject to special standards of this code section. The <br />yard in Lot 5, adjacent to outlot, is already at 50’. Side yard of Lot 14 appears to be 50 ’ but <br />the side yard adjacent to the outlot in Lot 15 would have to be expanded to 50 ’. This will not <br />impact proposed house locations for Lot 15. Note lot areas of 6 and 7 meet the required 1505o <br />area requirement but note the acres are not of contiguous dry buildable. In discussing this with <br />Mike Gaffron, he noted that this was not an issue during the review of this ordinance amendment <br />as there was a need to provide additional space for buffering and that the minimum area required <br />for zoning district had to be satisfied. Does the Planninc Commission have anv comments <br />concerning this issue? Any resolution approving the subdivision must include reference to the <br />back lot section of the code as it may impact future development of Lots 6 and 7. <br />Drainace/Grading/Wetlands <br />Per Council’s directive, the applicant has filed the preliminary plans for pennit approval <br />at both the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the local governmental unit responsible for <br />implementing the National Wetlands Act, and on the federal level the Corps of Engineers. As <br />of this writing the Citv has received no comment but staff will provide status report at the public <br />hearing. In the first phase development for both properties, less than ‘/i acre of undesignated <br />Type 1 wetlands shall be filled for required road improvements. As required, applicant has <br />shown 2:1 replacement. The MCWD has confirmed that no filling of Type 1, 2, 7 or 8 <br />wetlands will be allowed without permits. The only improvement iliat will be allowed without <br />permit will be the maintenance of a lawn area. No structures will be allowed.