07-11-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M05-3I12 June 20,200S Pnge 2 of 3 Exhibit F - Illustration ofBuildable Area Exhibit G - PC Memo and Exhibits dated S*S>0S Background At the May 16"' Planning Commission meeting the applicant appeared reciiiesting the variances noted above and also seeking a 7S’*2S0’ hardcover variance and a structural coverage variance. At that meeting the application was tabled and the applicant was directed to: 1. Eliminate the need for a structural coverage variance, 2. Eliminate existing and proposed retaining walls/curbs within the right-of-way, 3. Reduction of the proposed lake yard patio extending beyond the deck in an elTort to reduce hardcover further within the 7S’-2S0' zone, preferably to 2S%, 4. Eliminate the portions of proposed new structure (SE comer of house) coming within 10’ of an existing sewer line, 5. Revise lot line rearrangement request whereby lot areas and widths for both lots remain unchanged. Staff also would recommend that the City Engineer review the proposed grading plan prior to Planning Commission approval. Revised Request The applicant has revised his proposal eliminating the need for a stmctural coverage variance, eliminating the need for a 7S’-2S0’ hardcover variance, eliminating the retaining walls and curbs in the right-of-way and all new structure within 10’ of a proposed sewer easement. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and his comments are attached as Exhibit D. The applicant has chosen not to revise the lot line rearrangement request. 1'he applicant has submitted a memo, attached as Exhibit A, which outlines his revisions with reference to the previous staff recommendation and City Engineer recommendation, whereby a revised survey has been submitted and is attached as Exhibit C. The applicant was also directed to bring the neighbor at 1090 Wildhurst Trail into the application process. Staff met with both property owners and determined the existing letter, attached as Exhibit M to the previous PC report, was sufficient and that both owners would be required to sign a resolution for a lot line rearrangement. The owners of 1090 Wildhurst Trail would also be required to sign hardcover variance resolutions for their 7S’-2S0’ zone. From staffs perspective the outstanding issues are as follows: The lack of an e-tgineering report on the existing foundation and its ability to withstand the proposed additions (a formal recommendation of the City Engineer). Without this report the Planning Commission must make a recommendation based on the current plans assuming the report is favorable. The applicant has stated that this report is in the process, however has indicated the report will not be complete prior to the date of the meeting. Because of this the applicant has asked that the Planning Commission consider a 2-fold recommendation: I) assuming a favorable report from the engineer and 2) assuming an unfavorable report, which would require the applicant to completely rebuild. Based on the hardships of the pinched side lot lines, the sewer line, and the unusual amount of undeveloped right-of-way, staff finds that even with a rebuild similar