09-09-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Actipn continued page 3 of 4 September 5, 1996 Zoning File #2166 ________ for anv easements for that sewer.m Planning Commission generally felt that the house additions (which meet the 75’ setback but encroach the a\ erage setback) were not a problem, since neither of the adjacent properties has views of the lake that w ould be hindered. Planning Commission noted that the existing encroachment of the house into the 30' side setback and 75' lakeshore setback would not become more prominent with the proposed roof revisions and consequently had no concerns about those encroachments. Planning Commission felt that the 0.1% hardcover increase in the 75-250’ zone was adequately justified by the reductions in the 0-75’ zone. Grading and Drainage Plan Applicant’s architect has provided a preliminar>- grading plan for the driveway, however, City Engineer Glenn Cook has reviewed the plan and visited the site, and has some concern that there may be a potential need for a retaining w all, and possibly some drainage retention on the site or an agreement with the neighboring property owner as to drainage routing. He indicated that these issues can be resolved, and that the proposed driveway location is far superior to the existing location. Staff has no problem with approving the variance application subject to no building permit being issued until staff and City Engineer are comtortablc with the driveway and drainage plans. This has been incorporated in the resolution as a condition of approval. Future Sewer Route The City' Engineer has also reviewed the site in regards to the potential locations for sewer lines to serve applicant's residence and the three homes to the north. Due to elevation problems, it is likely that sewer will not extend across the east side of applicant’s property as shown on the preliminary sewer drawings, but likely will be constructed along County Road 15. Applicant should be advised that the City will need an easement for sewer, however, the exact location of that easement has yet to be defined. Although Council may w ish to condition variance approval on granting of an easement for future sewer, it is questionable whether there is a definite connection between the two subjects, because the proposed improvements requiring variances appear to have no impact on the sewer routing. While the City would always have the right to require the grantmg of sewer easements with a subdivision, that connection is not as clear with a variance application Staff Recommendation Applicant has revised certain facets site plan in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation. Staffs only remaining concern is grading and drainage near the driveway, which