Laserfiche WebLink
r2�",GULAR ?1EE"'ING OF THE ORO'70 COliIJCIL, JF�JUARY 9 , 19 79 Page 3 <br /> The lakeshore as indicated on recent plat (lai:e SUBDIVISION <br /> elevation on Septenber 27, 1977) by surveyor caas 3405 Sixth Avenue North <br /> set at 970. 86 . �he wetlands �ti�ere to be designated (Continued) <br /> by the 973 contour line,' all lands located between � <br /> the 970 . 86 and 973 contour are designated as <br /> wetland outlots. <br /> Setback P.equirements <br /> Structure setback - 26 ' from wetlands <br /> 150 ' from lakeshore <br /> Septic setback - 150 ' from lakeshore • <br /> 75 ' fron wetlands ' � <br /> Septic Test - Based on the information above and <br /> the septic test results, there appears adequate <br /> septic field area within the perr_mitted bounds for <br /> Lot 2. <br /> Private Road - Staff recorunends that we require . � <br /> only 50 ' for the private road •to confor-r.i with . <br /> previous plats with such lot densities. We require <br /> a permit from the County Highway Departnent for new <br /> access of County Road 6. <br /> Riparian Rights - The DNR has requested a restrictive <br /> . access to lakeshore through wetlands for both lots <br /> � along their mutual boundary. According to past <br /> records , you have not addressed this issue_ Staff <br /> recor.u;►ends a walking easement of 10 ' be c�ranted to <br /> Lot 1 through Lot 2 where a "man made" access point <br /> through the wetlands already exists. This access <br /> would continue to the lakeshore where a single dock <br /> for both lots �aould be allowed (sir.milar to Cargill <br /> and Farr► at Long Lake plats) . Applicant nust be <br /> r.iade aware that no future fill, land alteration, etc. <br /> can take place within the wetland to serve this access. <br /> Planning Commissiori Meeting - Decenber 11, 1978 <br /> Planning Commission moved to recomr,lend preliminary <br /> approval of the Craddock-Ledstror�l Subdivision <br /> subject to the following conditions: <br /> l. Private road to be reduced from 66 ' to 50 '. for <br /> a subdivision of such lot density. <br /> 2. Applicant did not want to address the riparian <br /> �ights issue for Lots 1 and 2. Council should <br /> raa}�e it clear that if this is not addressed now, . <br /> Lots 1 & 2 are subject to the lir,iitation of the <br /> Conservation and Flowage easenent - no construction <br /> allowed within wetlands. <br /> 3. Access to Lot 2 must be along the most western <br /> - portion of lot as any other approach would cut <br /> through the designated wetlands. Applicant <br /> insists he should be able to use an existing <br /> access. The existing access, constructed • <br /> illegally, cuts through the wetlands. (Continued) <br />