07-11-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MI5-3II2 June 20.200S Page J of 3 variances would be requested. Given all the restrictions, the buiidable area amounts to approximately 2,100 s.f., however based on the odd shape approximately 1/3 of it wouldn ’t be buiidable due where it narrows to a point. The logical next step would be granting a rear/street yard setback variance allowing for more buiidable area. Should that rear/street yard setback variance be 20’, 10’, or something in-between? If the Planning Commission wants to make a secondary recommendation based on an unfavorable engineering report, a discussion of how much buiidable area is reasonable and what level of rear/street yard setback variance is appropriate would need to take place. The Planning Commission would have to be comfortable coming to a conclusion on the level of rear/street yard setback variance without knowing the footprint or type of home proposed under a rebuild application. • Dedication -A the sewer easement by both involved property owners and finalization of that language. The City Engineer is his letter dated S-26-0S, asked for dedication of drainage and utility easements 10’ along the periphery lot lines and S’ along the interior lot lines. Staff finds that is it reasonable to request dedication of a S’ drainage and utility easement on both sides of the lot line being revised by the lot line rearrangement request only. This is standard as part of the subdivision approval. The applicants should indicate whether they are willing to dedicate these easements. • l4Btly, in an effort to meet the IS% structural coverage requirement the applicant omitted the lake side deck off the main level of the home from the proposal. Staff is concerned about a lake shore property not having a lake side deck and the potential for request of a future variance to obtain one. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the applicant should be required to include a lake yard deck and meet the structural coverage requirement. It should be noted that it appears that a patio off the walk out level of the home would exist either way. Staff Rcconmcmlation Staff recommends approval of the revised application pending tlie following: 1. Submittal of a fiivorable engineering report regarding the existing foundation and its ability to withstand the proposed improvements. 2. Dedication of a 20’ sewer easement centered over the existing sewer lines. This easement should be dedicated by both owners (1090 Wildhurst Trail and 4480 Forest Lake Landing). Staff is willing to negotiate the language of the easement to protect existing encroachments and other potential interests. 3. Dedication of a 5 ’ drainage and utility easement, by both property owners, to exist on eavh side of the revised common lot line. The Planning Commission may want to consider whether a lake yard deck off the main level of the home should be included, and also whether a secondary recommendation could be made should the engineering report on the existing foundation be unfavorable. ■ -'ff I