1981-03-03 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Frank Zirnney February 26, 1981 Page 3 required 110 foot minimum width for u corner lot. The developers asked for a variance for these narrower lots. Under most interpretations, the use of a variance is directed towards hardship cases; where the character or configuration of a lot is such that strict enforcement of the standards of an ordinance will result in a hardship to the property owner. I would suggest that the appropriateness of a variance in these situations is stretching the administrative function of a variance about as far as it should go. If the city does issue a variance for these eight lots, you should cite the hardship that you are trying to alleviate and consider this case as loose an application of, the variance procedure as you should ever use. 6. Block Length. Section 8 of the Subdivision Regulation require that no block exceed 620 feet in length without providing some provision for pedestrian walkways. Blocks 3, 4 and 6 exceed 620 teet. The city should be advised of this situation. However, from a planning standpoint, I see no great need to require through block movement in this subdivision. 7. Soils. Section 9 of the Subdivision Regulations gives the city authority to require soil testing of the site if inherent limitations of the site soils would appear to cause potential problems in building foundations or other construction. The Anoka County Soils Survey indicates the presence of soils with severe restrictions due to wetness on most of this site (over 70%). Those problem soils include Dundas loarn (Du) and Webster loam (Wb) both of which are projected to have seasonally high water tables within three to five feet of the ground surface. Since this developinent will be served by city sewer, they don't have to worry about limitations to on -site systems, but there may still be problems with building foundations, etc. Also, the Soils Survey indicates a number of small depressions with wet soils in the northern half of the site. The city may wish to require the developer to perform soil tests on the site to better understand what the limitations of the site are and to illustrate to the city how they will overcome those problems+ In conclusion, the proposed single - family subdivision appears to be generally consistent with the city's plans and ordinances. The above comments are provided to assist the Planning Commission in reviewing the proposal and they should be considered and resolved prior to approval of the preliminary plats If the Planning Commission has any comments or questions or would like further review, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, William Short Senior Associate cc: Walt Williarns, City Engineer WFS /ajo