03-23-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

File #2341 February 12, 1998 Pages Septic Testing and Site Availability Steve Weckman ha^ contirmed ihat all lots have viable primar>' and alternate sites, and that future testing would he t. - .ded io confirm whether less costly trench systems can be used on certain sites where mounds are now acceptable. Bluff Impacts Lots 5 and 6 contain a bluff, and the 'top of bluff was defined by staff during the sketch plan review. A 30' setback f . n top of bluff ‘ j required for any structures, and fill or excavated material is not allowed to be placed within the bluff impact zone. The top of bluff as depicted in the preliminary plat for Lot 5 does not match the top of bluff location identified by staff, and top of bluff actually is ver>^ near the proposed house location on Lot 5. Lot 5 has a very restrictive building site due to the street setback and top of bluff setback requirements. A more thorough analysis of the allowable building site should be considered for Lot 5, since that lot appears to be the least flexible of the lots in regards to house placement. T e and Woodland Impar' oposed Tree lines and wooded area ? on the topographic backci ound map (See Exhibit I of Sketch Plan memo). Most of the woov. a t^eas are near the shoreline or along the west property boundary. The dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowners will want to establish views of the lake irom their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such cha.»j;,:s in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtually untouched arm of Ma.xwell Bay. The tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6" or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing' within 7.5' of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. During the sketch plan review. Planning Commission agreed tL ould be appropriate to require that some type of 'tree conservation easement' be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 11.60, Subd. 1. The develojxjr should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. Issues for Discussion 1. Will Planning Commission accept the two cul-de-sac lots which require width variant