Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1-36 <br />March 23, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Discussion - <br />!• Accessory structures south of Luce Line. The reasons for Planning <br />Conunission's reconunendation to not allow any type of structures south of <br />the Luce Line were unclear to staff# hence the Planning Commission was <br />requested to restate those reasons at their meeting of March 20# 1989# <br />which they did. Their reasons for that recommendation are as follows: <br />A) Allowing accessory structures on the south side of the Luce Line <br />would encourage traffic across the trail# which would have a negative <br />effect on the trail and its users. <br />B) Perpetuating the use of this crossing will lead to a higher <br />potential for that crossing becoming a driveway to serve a future <br />house on the south side of the Luce Line; the Planning Commission <br />would prefer that this not ultimately happen. <br />C) The public access easement across the Luce Line will not be within <br />the boundaries of the new building site. This makes it impossible for <br />the property owner of the new building site to control his accessory <br />structures on the south side of the Luce Line. <br />The applicant suggests that the concer*i ; ted in C above could easily <br />be remedied by granting an access easement c ^ lot 1 and Outlet B in favor <br />of Lot 2 and Outlet A. Regarding the actual amount of traffic crossing the <br />Luce Line# applicant notes that his current use of the crossing is no more <br />than a few times a month at the very most. Furthermore# he notes that <br />though the DNR will not likely grant an additional access point between Lot <br />2 and Outlet A# such an access is not physically possible due to the <br />topography. He also notes that the easement is a public easement# allowing <br />anyone to cross the trail at the crossing point# hence Mr. Butterfield <br />certainly would have the right to grant easements across his property for <br />other parties to use the trail crossing. <br />Staff would hesitate to recommend a reversal of the Planning <br />Commission recommendation# however# Council is requested to consider <br />whether# as applicant states# not allowing any accessory structures south <br />of t. 3 Luce Line is an unreasonable condition for this property. Note that <br />the total dry acreage of Outlot A is 2.79 acres. <br />II. Wetlands. The applicant has historically used the two wetlands in <br />question for his flower growing operation. Specifically# the northerly <br />wetland was created by the applicant in 1953# by constructing a dike across <br />a swale area to create a 3/4 acre pond that at its deepest is about 10* <br />deep. That pend subsequently was listed as a designated wetland by the <br />City in its mid-l?70's delineation of wetlands. Applicant has used this <br />wetland for two spijcific purposes: <br />1. Retention of run-off from greenhouse buildings - retains nutrients <br />and sediments also.