Laserfiche WebLink
To: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: October 9~-1992 <br />Subject: #1764 Austiri Evans, 255 Landmark Dri~e -P~el{~i~ary <br />Subdivision -Continuation of Public Hearing <br />List of Exhibits <br />,5(,(tM.t ~ B 'I <br />~rwcAJJ-r~ <br />5.,. 2/.,p _tt 5 <br />c,,,-~~ <br />Exhibit A -Revised Survey <br />Exhibit B -Planning Cornmision Action Notice 9-23-92 <br />Exhibit C -Planning Commission Minutes 9-21-92 <br />Exhibit D -Memo and Exhibits of 9-18-92 <br />Discussion <br />After discussions with the DNR, applicant's engineer, and the <br />City Engineer, staff has concluded that it would be appropriate in <br />this case to credit as "flood fringe" area portions of the wetland <br />above the 929.4' elevation contour. <br />Also, DNR staff indicated that they would not necessarily <br />consider that the shoreline of Stubbs Bay continues through the <br />culvert, and left it to the City's discretion as to whether we should <br />treat it as such. I have taken the conservative approach and asked <br />the surveyor to define a 75' setback from the 929.4' contour line on <br />both Lots 1 and 2. <br />Based on the above, proposed Lot 1 contains 2.06 dry buildable <br />acres; proposed Lot 2 contains 1.20 acres above the 931.5' elevation, <br />with an additional 0.92 acres creditable above the 929.4' contour, for <br />a total lot area of 2.12 acres above the 929.4' elevation. This would <br />appear to meet the intent of Section 10.55, Subd. 15 (A-3} regarding <br />credit for flood fringe lands. <br />The resulting building envelope for Lot 2 ranges from 60' to 120' <br />in width and 120' in depth, ample room for development of a residence. <br />Additional Factors <br />Following are additional points noted in the September 18th memo: <br />~l. <br />The property is served with sewer but was assessed only one.-·· <br />unit as part of the Bayside Noz;,th project, and this <br />assessment would logically be assigned to Lot 1.· <br />A sewer stub can easily be provided to .serve Lot.2. Note <br />that the sewer unit for Lot. 2 would be charged the full unit <br />price not the reduced price, since the lot is not buildable <br />without sewer. This connection charge would be collected at <br />the time a building pe~mit•is issued for Lot 2. Council