04-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l: ■04-J0Q2 April 19.20M r*t«sof5 ArgvaicaU to be Dbpntcd Topography - Some may consider the topography a hardship due to the steep slope. This is disputed by the fact that a defined access pi^way from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope has existed for many years. This access is due to the City ’s Public Works need to ac cess the City sewer line which rxins along the shore past the boathouse (see Easement Discussion below). The applicant does have the ability to construct a detached building on the top of the slope and use this access to move things from the detached building to the shore. Also, a lock-box meeting Zoning Ordinance standards would be permitted. Damage to Sewer Line - The I4)plicants may argue that there is potential to damage the sewer line with demolition of the structure. It is staffs opinion that this should not wrigh in on the Planning Commission determination of hardship. The structure can be removed, without heavy machinery if required, and any damage to the sewer line would be the applicants ’ responsibility. Access Easement - The applicants may feel a fair compromise would be to allow the boathouse to remain in exchange for an ofHcial easement to access the sewer. Staff would Ag*‘" argue that this should not weigh in on any determination of hardship. The access around the north side of the lot originated many years ago in order for a previous owner to access the lake with a golf cart, most likely before the sewer was installed. Since installation of sewer the City has used this access for maintenance purposes (without an easement). Until this time the City was not aware that an easement didn’t exist. Regardless of this application the City should purstic this easement Eaaemcat for Sewer Maiatcnaaee After initial meetings with the realtor and current applicants it came to the City ’s attention that an easement does not exist for access to the sewer. Planning Department staff dten spoke with the Public Works department and concluded that this access to the sewer is required for maintenance purposes. The sewer line runs alo ’ the shoreline, and because of the steep slopes that exist on properties to the south, the Public Works department has indicated that it is one of the only places to access the shore in the immediate area. The Planning Commission should discuss whether this easement should be pursued and if the applicants are agreeable to it. Isaacs for Coasidcratkm 1. Do any hardships exist to warrant approval of the variance? 2. Does this structure have any negative impacts when viewed from the lake? 3. Should the City formally punue an easement per Exhibit G? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Stair RceoniBicadatioD Denial of the requested variaiKe. The Plaiming Commission should indicate if the epsement along the shore should be pursued at this time of ownership transition and in conjunction with a building permit to construct a new home. I 1 11 iL I 11