08-26-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1366 March 23, 1989 Page 2 of 4 DiBCUSsion - I* Accessory structures south of Luce Line* The reasons for Planning Commission's recommendation to not allow any type of structures south of the Luce Line were unclear to staff, hence the Planning Commission was requested to restate those reasons at their i.eeting of March 20, 1989, which they did. Their reasons for that recommendation are as follows: A) Allowing accessory structures on the south side of the Luce Line would encourage traffic across the trail, which would have a negative effect on the trail and its users. B) Perpetuating the use of this crossing will lead to a higher potential for that crossing becoming a driveway to serve a future house on the south side of the Luce Line; the Planning Commission would prefer that this not ultimately happen. C) The public access easement across the Luce Line './ill not be within the boundaries of the new building site. This makes it impossible for the property owner of the new building site to control his accessory structures on the south side of the Luce Line. The applicant suggests that the concern noted in C above could easily be remedied by granting an access easement over Lot 1 and Cut lot B in favor of Lot 2 and Outlet A. Regarding the actual amount of traffic crossing the Luce Line, applicant notes that his current use of the crossing is no more than a few times a month at the very most. Furthermore, he notes that t.Hough the DNR will not likely grant an additional access point between Lot 2" and Outlet A, such an access is not physically possible due to ;he topography. Re also notes that the easement is a public easement, allowing anyone to cross the trail at the crossing point, hence Mr. Butterfield certainly would have the right to grant easements across his property for other parties to use the trail crossing. Sraff would hesitate to recommend a reversal of the Planning Commission recommendation, however. Council is requested to consider whether, as applicant states, not allowing any accessory structures south of the Luce Line is an unreasonable condition for this property. Note that the total dry acreage of <^u*'lot A is 2.79 acres. II. Wetlamda. The applicant has historically used the twe wetlands in question for his flower growing operation. Specifically, the northerly wetland was created by the applicant in 1953, by constructing a dike •cross e swale area to create a 3/4 acre pond that at its deepest is about 10 deep. That pond subsequently was listed as a designated wetland by the City in its mid-1970's delineation of wetlands. Applicant has used this wetland for two specific purposes: 1, detention of run-off from greenhouse buildings - retains nutrients and sediments also.