11-28-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 3 October 3, 1994 Zoning File #1968 Ceil Strauss of the DNR has confirmed from information provided her by suff that this is a bkiff. subject to the special protections afforded the bluff impact zone. She has recommended denial of the proposed driveway. HenKpin Courty Department of Transportation has indicated they will approve an access at the proposed location, although they note that such location does not meet their sight distance requirement but is the best location as compared to others along the property ’s road ftonuge. City Pwgiiwfir Glen Cook has reviewed the application and his carehilly worded letter does not specifically lecommend ^iproval, but recommends that a number of is sues be addressed if the proposal is approved. The property was provided with and assessed for municipal sewer as pan of the Stul^ Bay project. A well would have to be developed on the site. One of the Planning Commission s specific concerns was that access for service and construction vehicles (such as concrete trucks and well drilling rigs, and even the moving van) would not have adequate access to the house. Planning Commission felt that the detrimenul impact on the environment as well as the questionable safety aspects of the proposal, outweigh any hardship shown for approving this specific access. Discussion at the Planning Commission led suff to conclude that the lot area and lot width variances were likely to be accepted if an alternate access is proposed that avoids the above memioned negative environmenul impact and addresses the safety issue. As a poii»» of information, the dock located across Bayside Road from the property has existed since 1970 or earlier based on available aerial photography. Staff Rccomniendatioa Staff concurs with Planning Commission that the proposed access location and design have severe negative impacts which likely can be avoided by acquisition of an easement thnMgh neighboring property. The applicant;; arn^ their builder. Mr. Roeloffs, zre m a better position than staff to define the relative costs ‘.'t >uf'h <»n alternative access. Staff recommends that the application as proposed be denied, but 'hat the applicants be afforded the opporuinity to bring in an alternate access proposal. Council may wish to discuss with the City Attorney any potential ramifications of complete dcni<«' of buildability of this lot.