Laserfiche WebLink
M04.3002 <br />April 19.2004 <br />Pages of 5 <br />Arguments to be Disputed <br />Topography - Some may consider the topography a hardship due to the steep slope. This <br />is disputed by the fact that a defined access pathway from the top of the slope to the <br />bottom of the slope has existed for many years. This access is due to the City’s Public <br />Works need to access the City sewer line which runs along the shore past the boathouse <br />(see Easement Discussion below). The applicant does have the ability to construct a <br />detached building on the top of the slope and use this access to move things from the <br />detached building to the shore. Also, a lock-box meeting Zoning Ordinance standards <br />would be permitted. <br />Damage to Sewer Line - The applicants may argue that there is potential to damage the <br />sewer line with demolition of the structure. It is staffs opinion that this should not weigh <br />in on the Planning Commission determination of hardship. The structure can be <br />removed, without heavy machinery if required, and any damage to the sewer line would <br />be the applicants’ responsibility. <br />Access Easement - The applicants may feel a fair compromise would be to allow the <br />boathouse to remain in exchange for an official easement to access the sewer. Staff <br />would again argue that this should not weigh in on any determination of hardship. The <br />access around the north side of the lot originated many years ago in order for a previous <br />owner to access the lake with a golf cart, most likely before the sewer was installed. <br />Since installation of sewer the City has used this access for maintenance purposes <br />(without an casement). Until this time the City was not aware that an easement didn’t <br />exist. Regardless of this application the City should pursue this easement. <br />Easement for Sewer Maintenance <br />After initial meetings with the realtor and current applicants it came to the City’s <br />attention that an easement does not exist for access to the sewer. Planning Department <br />staff then spoke with the Public Works department and concluded that this access to the <br />sewer is required for maintenance purposes. The sewer line runs along the shoreline, and <br />because of the steep slopes that exist on properties to the south, the Public Works <br />department has indicated that it is one of the only places to access the shore in the <br />immediate area. The Planning Commission should discuss whether this easement should <br />be pursued and if the applicants are agreeable to it. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Do any hardships exist to warrant approval of the variance? <br />2. Does this stmeture have any negative impacts when viewed from the lake? <br />3. Should the City formally pursue an easement per Exhibit G? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Denial of the requested variance. The Planning Commission should indicate if the <br />easement along the shore should be pursued at this time of ownership transition and in <br />conjunction with a building permit to construct a new home.