05/12/1993 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 3 MAY 12, 1993 would result in the loss of one lot. Mr. Granger explained that Lot 6 has approximately 90 -100' of footage from the front property line to the wetland. There is a total area of 14,000 square feet. He further indicated that the land area north of the wetland is significant and would make a very useable space. It is possible that future property owners could construct a walkway or bridge to access the northern portion of their lot(s). It is also possible that only lot 6 would experience standing water all year. Kathy Nordine asked if a dock or bridge could be constructed in a wetland - staff replied affirmatively provided it does not obstruct the wetland. Mr. Brixius added that eliminating one of the lots and making them wider would not provide any additional rear yard - additional width but not depth. Rick Gelbmann suggested that the Board may want to consider requiring a certain percentage of the 10,800 square footage to be contiguous - such as 75 %. Mr. Brixius further explained that this is a unique situation and he does not know of other lots in the area that have had this problem. Kathy Nordine asked if there was a setback requirement from the wetland and was advised the there is none in this case, however, homes would be required to be constructed 3' above the ordinary high water mark. Mr. Mesich stated there is a reason we require the 10,800 square footage and to deviate from that requirement is asking for trouble. He suggested we may want to consider a trail between lots 4 & 5 with a bridge constructed by the developer. There was also concern expressed that property owners may not be able to afford the construction of a walkway to access the rear of their lots. Mr. Granger explained that these will be expensive lots and he was certain the property owners would have the means to provide landscaping and walkways as necessary. Chairman Schaps suggested an agreement for these lots which would prohibit fences and provide for a common walkway. Mr. Granger stated that this probably would not appeal to the property owners because you could potentially have people walking through your back yard to access their rear property. Mr. Robinson agreed that a common easement would take away from the value of the property and may affect future financing. Mr. Gelbmann stated that he had walked the site and it seemed reasonable to him. However, he did express concern about setting a precedent. Kathy Nordine felt there would be a need to look at each case individually - it may be acceptable in this case but not the next depending on the development characteristics of the site. In this case there appears to be adequate room available. Mr. Mesich asked if the state statutes required the land to be