Laserfiche WebLink
Date Application Received: 03<23-0S <br />Dale Appikation Compiete: 04-11-05 <br />60-Day Review Period Eipiralion: 06-11-05 <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: May 3,2005 <br />Item No. <br />Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: <br />Name: Melanie Curtis <br />Title: City Planner <br />Item Description: <br />#05-3107 - Natural Environments Corp - 825 Tonkawa Rd - CUP & Variance - Resolution <br />Zoning District: <br />Lot Area: <br />Lot Width: <br />LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District <br />1.3 Acres <br />106’ @ shoreline / 136’ @ 75’ setback <br />List of Exhibits: <br />A - Resolution per Planning Commission recommendation <br />B - PC Action Notice dated 04-19-05 <br />C - PC Memo & Exhibits of 04-11 -05 <br />Applicant is requesting the following: <br />1. A conditional use permit in order to replace a rotted wooden stair system with lower glacial <br />boulder walls, vegetation, re-grading the slope and the installation of a granite stair system. <br />2. A hardcover variance due to the change in the hardcover percentage proposed. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br />On April 18,2005, Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the hardcover variance <br />and conditional use permit per the Staff recommendation. <br />Lot Width Variance Required <br />During the review process for the retaining walls and stairway, it has just recently come to light that <br />the lot is substandard in width as measured at the lakeshore. Required lot width for the LR-IB District <br />is 140’, and an existing lot of record meeting 80% of the lot area and width standards is allowed to be <br />rcsidentially developed. The 80% of width standard for a lakeshore lot must be met at the OHV/L and <br />at the 75’ setback line. In this case, the lot exceeds 140’ in width for most of its length, as well as at <br />the building location, but narrows to 106’ defined width at the shoreline, not meeting the 80% standard <br />(106/140 = 76%). <br />This lot has been vacant since 1995, and although the current property owner has made a number of <br />inquiries in the last few months about aspects of building on the lot, the lot width issue was not <br />discovered until this week. The lot width issue is in staffs opinion a technicality in this case; we <br />kL^