Laserfiche WebLink
Date Application Received: 6/21/OS <br />Date Appikatlon Considered as Complete: 6/21/OS <br />60-Day Review Period Bipires: 8/20/0S <br />To;Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Mike Gaffion, Planning Director <br />July 14,2005 <br />Subject:M)5-3128 Gr^o^ O’Connor/Richard Fruen, 400/410 Big Island <br />- Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing <br />Zoning District: RS Seasonal Recreational District, S-acre minimum <br />Lot Areu: <br />400 Big Island: <br />410 Big Island: <br />Existing <br />17.300 s.f,± (0.40 ac.) <br />36.300 s.f. ± (0.83 ac.) <br />Proposed <br />20,600 s.f. ± (0.47 ac.) <br />33,000 s.f.± (0.76 ac.) <br />Ai^Ueati0H Summary; Applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement between <br />these two recreational parcels. <br />Pertinent Code Sections: <br />Section 78-S68/S69/S70: RS District Standards <br />Minimum lot area required = 5.0 acres dry buildable <br />Minimum lot width required 200', but no lot line rearrangement shall reduce any <br />record lot width to less than 50’. <br />Side Yard Setback: 10’ for record lots less than 100’ in width <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Application <br />B - Plat map <br />C - Survey - Existing & Proposed Lot Lines <br />D - Airphoto <br />E - Correqwndence <br />F - Hennqiin County Approval Form <br />G - Property Own«s List <br />Background <br />Each lot contains a seasonal cabin. 410 also has a shed and an extensive retaining wall system <br />holding up the steep bluff at the lakeshore. No new construction or activity is proposed. The lot <br />line rearrangement is intended to resolve a historical encroachment issue that applicants thought <br />had been resolved via a deed exchange in 1986, but which never received City {q>provai. The <br />cabin on 400 Big Island encroaches approximately 1.4 ’ onto 410 Big Island. The 10’ property <br />exchange leaves one comer of the 400 Big Island cabin 8.6’ from the lot line, where 10’ would <br />be required, but staff has concluded that requiring ^plicants to revise all their deeds and past <br />actions to gain the extra 1.4 ’ is not justified. <br />-ifrtii inTit A.