06-10-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # 19-28 May 20, 2019 Page 4 of 5 submitted plans" suggests the house, hardcover, and other features of that plan were approved. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Review of the practical difficulties suggests that the variance is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the ordinance. The purpose behind the requirement of a separate outlot for front/ back lot configurations is in part to consolidate driveway accesses, prevent flag lots, and allow for an HOA for maintenance. These concerns are addressed in the unique configuration of the lot, and while the outlot is currently owned by the owner of lot 2, and ownership would transfer to the owner of lot 1, an appropriate maintenance agreement could be filed. The property, at the end of a peninsula is not of the applicants making. This uniqueness of this property, including its status at the end of a peninsula, and no actual frontage on a public or private street is not likely to be replicated elsewhere in the community. The lack of an outlot is not likely to alter the essential character of the community. To the community, there is no perceptible difference between an outlot and an easement. This is the situation today, where the northern terminus of Ivy Place is actually within a private easement; Ivy Place right of way ends at 3550 Ivy Place, one lot to the south of the apparent terminus. (Ivy Place Street, Exhibit G) The applicant notes that the dock was shown on a concept plan. This is correct, the preliminary site plan presented to the City Council (as part of the preliminary plat) and the site plan (as part of the final plat, attached as Exhibit H) showed two docks. However, it is not customary to review these types of improvements for final approval because in most situations these are conceptual and often change. As the footprint and hardcover proposals changed. Further, the application did not request dock approval, or hardcover approval, or building footprint approval. Finally, it should be noted that not all of the site plan sheets, even those showing the footprint of the building, included the docks. Miscommunication between the developer and the city is not a practical difficulty. It may be appropriate to note that there are existing sanitary sewer easements in this area, protecting an underground (and water) trunk line. Even if the variance was to be approved, the location of the existing, live sanitary sewer trunk would preclude the placement of a permanent dock over that easement. The City does not permit permanent improvements over easements that could jeopardize their functionality or the city's ability to service them. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received.