11-23-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I^CTION Lainary plat eesor adding property be not be used >venanta and it 7sd(l p^* Ing Conaieelen •r review and M.- V 1 # Tor Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Fr(Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date October 9, 1992 Subject:#1764 Austin Evans, 255 Landmark Drive - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Mst of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Revised Survey Planning Conmision Action Notice 9-23-92 Planning Comnisslon Minutes 9-21-92 Memo and Exhibits of 9-18-92 Discussion After discussions with the DNR, applicant's engineer, and the City Engineer, staff has concluded that it would be appropriate in this case to credit as "flood fringe" area portions of the wetland above the 929.4* elevation contour. Also, DNR staff indicated that they would not necessarily consider that the shoreline of Stubbs Bay continues through the culvert, and left it to the City's discretion as to whether we should treat it as such. I have taken the conservative approach and asked the surveyor to define a 75' setback from the 929.4' contour line on both Lots 1 and 2. Based on the above, proposed Lot 1 contains 2.06 dry buildable acres; proposed Lot 2 contains 1.20 acres above the 931.5* elevation, with an additional 0.92 acres creditable above the 929.4' contour, for a total lot area of 2.12 acres above the 929.4* elevation. This would appear to meet the intent of Section 10.55, Subd. 19 (A-3) regarding credit for flood fringe lands. The resu :ing building envelope for Lot 2 ranges from 60* to 120* in width and 120* In depth, ample room for development of a residence. Aid it tonal Factors Following are additional points noted in the September I8th eemoi 1.The property is served with sewer but was assessed ^nly one unit as part of the Bayside North project, and this assessment would logically bo assigned to Lot 1. A sewer stub can easily be provided to serve I*ot 2. Note that the sewer unit for Lot 2 would be charged the full unit price not the reduced price, since the lot is not buildable witltout setter. This connection charge would be collecrted at the time a building permit is issued for Lot 2. Council O I Zoning Pile October 9, Page 2 m b S d i a: (1 ui d. 8 2.T] d< dx pa 3.Hi if ad ad an pi Th mu ho fi th 5.As de ao Staff RecfHBmi Staff ri to the fullot 1 .Loi act fut be • 4 COli 2.Tht •it