05-13-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 substandard lot. I advised the Pillsbury's to select the site for the proposed building and to have the necessary septic tests made to assure a primary and alternate site. I reviewed the flood plain maps with them and advisee; that the survey should also designate the flood plain area. We met once again to review the survey. The building location was noted and I have sketched in the approximate location of the proposed residence on a survey (see Exhibit E). The preferred house location is indeed involved with the outer or fringe portions of the flood plain - the future owners were made aware of that earlier this year. They have been advised that the DNR must review all a-- terations of a designated flood plain and that the City will require that the elevation of the first "Living Level" be 1 foot above the flood plain eleN ation of 931.5. Planning Commission raised the issue of the creation of a sub- standard building site with the transfer of B and rearrangement of C and the need for a future variance review. The same issue could have been raised with the Smiley lot line rearrangement if Yale Smiley had not applied for a building permit within a year of his variance approval. The Planning Commission recommends approving a permanent variance for the proposed undevelcped substandard lot based on the following findings: 1. The buildability of the lot. has ..ot been endangered. 2. The division will provide the adjacent substandard rural lot additional land for septic expans'_on. 3. The division does not create a new building site. Planning Commission strongly recommends that the City grant per- manent variances for substandard lots created by lot line rearrange- ment dealing with undeveloped properties. Planning Commission Recommendation: To approve the separation of P.I.D. 11-117-23 32 0004 from the two contiguous rural parcels owned by Eleanor Lawler Pillsbury, the division or rearrangement of P.I.D. 11-117-23 32 0005 and a permanent area variance for undeveloped Pillsbury property based on one or more of the following findings: 1. The division will not increase the overall density. 2. The applicart's current property contains .92 acres of area - the 75 feet setvack area and the house and improvements limit future septic expansion on the existing property. 3. There is suitable and adequate area for principal and alter- nate septic systems on the undeveloped building site. 4. There is adequate area for a house to be located within the building envelope of the and^velopcd _property.