05-16-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

h Zoning File #1911 March 16. 1994 Page 3 Dossible registration of lands. Council conceptually approved the proposal. The applicar* has filed L required lot area variance Review Evlubil E. pnor to staffs receipt ol the to^graphtc information, the building envelope was defined by building setbacks ol the ^-tB Zoning District The topivgraphic information has been reviewed by the suit and it has b«n lound that the proposed undeveloped lot will be severely restricted by a blulf tmpact tone. Please review the code sections listed above. Mike Gaffron has prepared various exhibits to assist Planning Commission in understating the deiemiinaiion of a bluff impact zone and the location of boih ihe ne and top ot the blutfi Review Exhibits H. G and H. first task is to define ihe toe ot the blulf and m this case is the L of the retaining wall. The lop of the bluff is determined by the last 50 segment that results in an average slope exceeding I81v (9 rise in 50 ). Staff met with Ceil Strauss of the DNR. The v ariance application with topogiaphic infomation was given to Strauss for review and comment. Staff will repon .at your meeting ol her findings and recommendation. This is Ihe second application of your March agenda involving liie impact of protected bluff areas upon proposed building siies. The current code is very restrictive. We are planning a possible code aniendmeni that would define clearer and less restrictive m he determination of a bluff, specifically where ihe lop of the blulf ends. “’’'I''^ t definition in the code defines the lop of bluff at one elevation and yet the visual perception ol the top at another. The issue is how do we meet the intent of the state regulation and impact on steeper elevation of bluff areas Ceil Strauss has advised that our City seems to have more questionTand problems with the interpretation of this specific c^e have chosen more restrictive standards It may be that other municipalities have not begun o deal with the requiremenis of implementing this section. We will continue to work closely ith the DNR whenever variances to the current code section are required. Issues for Consideration 1 Review Exhibits FI and F2, would the Planning Commission approve a variance that would allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone in order to retain a building envelope within higher elevations but more gentle sloped portion of this property? Review Exhibit I, the lower elevations of the original lot have more gentler topographies. ■■ Shoull wrrecommend lu applicam iha. lot litK rearrangeuicnt be readjusted so that a building envelope is retained in the southern more gentle sloped portions of and allow expansion of applicant s homestead lo the west instead of the north^ T would defeat the whole purpose and intent of Mr. Ummerman s comprehensive application?