Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 tk_flood plain maps with then and advised that the survey should also designate the flood plain area. we met once again to review the survey. The bui ldina 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 ownerr were made aware of that earlier this year. They have been advised that the UNR must review all al- terations of a designated flood plain and that the City will require that the elevation of the first "Living Level" be 1 f- ai --ve the flood plain elevation of 931.5. Planning Commission raised the issue of the creation of a sub- standard building site with the tra sfer of R 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 Smile, had not applied for a building permit within a year his variance approval. The Planning Commission recommends approving a permanent variance for the proposed undeveloped substandard lot based on the following findings: 1. The buildability of the lot 'as not been endangered. 2. The division will provide the adjacent substandard rural lot additional land for septic expansion. 3. The division (;ui s riot . reate .. building site. Planning Commission strongly recommenci�_, that the City grant per- manent riances for substandard lots created by 1vt line rearrange- ment de .g with undeveloped properties. Planning Lcimmission Rec -mstendation: To approvo the separation of P.I.L. 11-117-23 32 0004 from the cant i quous rural pa r,�, 1 s owned by Eleanor Lawler Pillsbury, the ;;lion or rearrangement of 11-117-23 32 0005 and a permanent area variance for undeveloped Pi1isbury property based on one or more of the fol lowing fin(finds: 1. The .v� wi 1 1 not increase the overal I density. 2. The applicant's curt--operty contains .92 acres of area - the 75 feet setback A the t -use and improvements limit future septic expansic ex:atinq property. 3. There is suitable ano .Lie,ivate area for principal and alter- nate septic systems on the undeveloped baildinq site. 4. Th.-re is adequate area for a house to be located within the building envelop., of th- undeveloped property. 2