Laserfiche WebLink
.nistrator <br />- Variance <br />le Lot <br />lly combined, <br />e lot. This <br />Commission <br />ant to go <br />Parcel "B” <br />Proposed % Variance <br />*19,500 <br />* 65 <br />*10% <br />*35% <br />the actual <br />lication cannot <br />, there is a <br />Commission and <br />t question is, <br />Ldually rather <br />roperty owner <br />2d that substandard <br />subdivision and <br />:d. But for <br />80% of the <br />standard <br />)o we treat them <br />penalize the <br />iivide and meet <br />'•iV M <br />mm <br />. . . <br />#811 - John Ericson <br />February 16, 1984 <br />Page 2 <br />« <br />• rj <br />4 <br />■i <br />100% to accomplish the same purpose? Should we now require a single <br />standard, across the board, for both individual separate lots and for the <br />separation of combined lots? <br />Also, what about houses which are very close to a proposed or existing <br />lot line? (Ericson's is such a situation). Where a house sits within <br />edge of one lot, and the request is to make the adjacent lot <br />buildable, do we force a subdivision or plat to create reasonable setbacks <br />for the existing house? or, do e allow the substandard setback to exist? <br />If we do force a subdivision beu«ivise a house is near (or even over) a lot <br />line, are we willing to create gerrymandered lot shapes to meet lot <br />area or width standards? <br />Or do we ’ ly totally on the limitations of lakeshore hardcover to protect <br />the City? It likely that many "creatable" lakeshore lots would be <br />unattractive from a practical standpoint because hardcover limitations <br />would create very limited building envelopes. <br />To sum up, do we want to set a precedent by allowing a "de-combination" <br />to create two substandard lots where one conforming lot now exists? <br />Under a "de-combination", should lots combined for tax purposes be <br />considered, as separate lots, having to meet 80% of the standards or as a <br />new subdivision having to meet 100% of the standards? <br />Staff recommends that Planning Commission table this application and request <br />conceptual direction for the Council on what standards to apply to this <br />situation. The Planning Commission should outline the important <br />considerations so Council can make a determination how to adjust current <br />policy to cover items of this nature. Once Council has made a determination <br />Planning Commission should then request further information from the <br />applicant in order to complete a thorough review. The following conditions <br />would be appropriate at that point: <br />1) Applicant must submit a detailed certificate of survey showing: <br />a) <br />b) <br />c) <br />d) <br />e) <br />existing property boundaries <br />proposed property boundaries <br />the location and setbacks of all existing structures, proposed <br />location and setbacks of any existing structures to be relocated <br />(garage) <br />certification of lot area and width for both proposed lots <br />all existing and proposed hardcover, including driveways <br />Since applicant has submitted a set of plans for a specific house <br />for the new lot, applicant is advised it would be prudent to locate the <br />proposed house on the survey also. <br />"T'rt. - <br />1 <br />'V' 1 ■''fi ' <br />4: <br />r !f» ^ <br />m <br />m <br />m <br />lil <br />#811 - <br />Februa] <br />Page 3 <br />3)Apj <br />be <br />4)Apf <br />be <br />app <br />5)App <br />the <br />For fut <br />statist <br />Not <br />Hen <br />the; <br />17 < <br />16 < <br />the <br />0.11 <br />the <br />in ( <br />and <br />the <br />the <br />19 c <br />12 c <br />With the <br />0.45 and <br />16 of th <br />15 of th <br />In the e <br />north of <br />47% <br />26% <br />Now, let <br />study, bi <br />Range <br />Averag <br />Ericso <br />13 <br />17 <br />12