11-18-1985 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Zoning File #988 November 13, 1985 Page 2 of 4 3. The applicant is proposing no variances to the hardcover limita tion, and feels he can build within the 25% limitation. Note that the previous applicant, Doug Smith, submitted a survey/site plan which showed approximately 40% hardcover, but was never followed up. Note that in order to meet the 25% limit, the house will have to be fairly close to the road and/or the existing garage will have to be used. 4. The existing garage is non-conforming in that it lies partially within the right-of-way of Casco Circle. The structure is still in good condition and functional. If the applicant was forced to remove the garage to a site more conforming on the property, the hardcover would necessarily increase because of the additional driveway needed; perhaps increasing the needed hardcover over the 25% limit. 5. No setback variances are requested for the new construction. 6. City water is in the street but no stub was ever provided to the property, since at the time City water lines were installed, it was not anticipated this lot would be built on. A $580 water unit charge must be paid, and the owner will be responsible for the connection to the City line. 7. City sewer is available on the lake side of the property, how ever, the stub on Lot 18 was used by the house on Lots 16 and 17 according to City as-built drawings, again not anticipating that Lot 18 would become buildable. A new stub and connection would have to be provided by the owner. Note also that the sewer unit charge for Lot 18 will be $1,457 ($225 initial unit charge, $165 for L.S. #6 bypass, $1,067 for L.S. #7 forcemain, per Resolution #1854). (This amount would be increased to $1,569 if building permit is not applied for by L'^ecember 31, 1985.) The applicant has not at this time pro:^ided a proposed site plan, but is aware of the hardcover and setback limitations of the lot. The Planning Commission is asked to review the findings and conditions of Resolution #1607, and iruy wish to incorporate any or all of these findings in a recommendation for approval: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File No. 988. 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property was in common ownership with contiguous lots 16 and 17, Spring Park, prior to 1967 through 1977 when thge applicant purchased the property. Lots 16 and 17 are now legally combined.