07-10-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w. Zoning File fflOlO May 3, 1995 Page 3 The Engineer has asked for a utility easement at a 15' width along die north^de lot line of Lot 1 to allow future sewer sen-ice to Church property^ Review Exhibit ^ ^at ot *e impact on mature trees? The property is not located withm the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The Engineer is asking the City to consider tiimre needs. The accessoiy strucmre on Lot 3 no longer will achieve credit of the residence on the propertv and upon final plat approval becomes a non-conforming sttucmre. consisren with orevious policy, the City would ask that the structure be removed within one >ear of tinal plat approval date if a building permit has not been issued for new residential construction on Lit 3^Ve existing residence' on Lot 2 i— either be a ftimre part of ' or may remain as an accessory structure wn.: -.xpanded living space but "'Jh “ structure can never function as a separate re .-dential unit because the property lacks the area reXment for a non-rental euest house use. The owner will be asked to execute a covenant if the strucmre remains as a separate accessory structure to alert all tumre owners that Structure could never serve as an independent residential unit. Review Exhibit F, the Environmental Specialist with Schoell and Madson has continued that there arnoTif^ 1 or 2 wetlands within the property. The only wet area would be the drainageway that intersects Lot 1. During the sketch plan review. Planning Commission members discussed the removal of the existing cul-de-sac and driveway. Note applicant has asked to keep the cul-de-sac because of unique landscape features. The cul-de-sac is located within both Lots 1 and *. and will receive major impact when the sewer line is installed. It is questionable whether applicant w^ld mats to retain the cul-de-sac once the property is offered for development. In act, tt may prove to be a problem for the future owners of Luts 1 and 2. Because of its property, it would never sene as a mmaround for either of the properties. Applicant should he questioned on this point. The Plannina Commission was concerned with the issue of tree removal with the oroDosed location of the future residence building on Lot I. Please refer to Exhibits B and 1- of the 3" larae mature trees, only 5 would be removed. Applicant wants to reassure Pbming Commission that this would not be a matter of clear cutting and that the valu. of propeny is based on the existence of those trees not their removal. „ r ‘-r rrr .ir r. “ turnaround on this property when adequate and safe access is already provided.