07-11-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Zoning File #1911 March 16, 1994 Page 3 possible registration of lands. Council conceptually approved the proposal. The applicant has filed the required lot area variance. Review Exhibit E, prior to staffs receipt of the topographic information, the building envelope was defined by building setbacks of the LR-IB Zoning District. The topographic information has been reviewed by the staff and it has been found that the proposed undeveloped lot will be severely restricted by a bluff impact zone. Please review the code sections listed above. Mike Gaffron has prepared various exhibits to assist Planning Commission in understanding the determination of a bluff impact zone and the location of both the toe and top of the bluff. Review Exhibits F, G and H, first task is to defme the toe of the bluff and in this case is the area of the retaining wall. The top of the bluff is determined by the last 50 ’ segment that results in an average slope exceeding 18% (9’ rise in 50 ’). Staff met with Ceil Strauss of the DNR. The variance application with topographic information was given to Strauss for review and comment. Staff will report at your meeting of her findings and recommendation. This is the second application of your March agenda involving the impact of protected blutt areas upon proposed building sites. The current code is very restrictive. We are planning a possible code amendment that would define clearer and less restrictive guidelines in the determination of a bluff, specifically where the top of the bluff ends. Review Exhibit F, the definition in the code defines the top of bluff at one elevation and yet the visual perception of the top at another. The issue is how do we meet the intent of the state regulation and minimize impact on steeper elevation of bluff areas. Ceil Strauss has advised that our City seems to have more questions and problems with the interpretation of this specific code section because we have chosen more restrictive standards. It may be that other municipalities have not begun to deal with the requirements of implementing this section. We will continue to work closely with 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 functional building envelope within higher elevations but more gentle sloped portion of this property? 2.Review Exhibit I, the lower elevations of the original lot have, more gentler topographies. Should we recommend to applicant that lot line rearrangement be readjusted so that a building envelope is retained in the southern more gentle sloped ponions of the property and allow expansion of applicant’s homestead to the west instead of the north? This would defeat the whole purpose and intent of Mr. Lemmerman ’s comprehensive application? T I ■^I7~ r~ir»'ii iin^i I ir~i i ti i