07-11-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 4 July 7. 1994 Zoning Files #1903 & 1911 originally advised that applicant would have to file for a registration of the property because of certain boundary issues but later found that the matter had been resolved by applicant ’s attorney. Review Exhibits F and I, as originally proposed the propenies are divided along the ridge of steeper elevations. The division will result in an expanded building.envelope for applicant ’s homestead property to the south contiguous with existing more graduated elevations. Applicant s homestead is almost doubled in size. The Planning Commission conditioned the approval on the lot line being adjusted so that the existing garage on Lot 2 meets the required 10 setback at the northwest corner. Application #1911 Involves a lot area variance for the undeveloped lot now decreased in size from .78 to .47 acre: The lot is naturally divided by the steep topographies located within the ccr.w- .lions of the uniqu-ly shaped lot. A former residence had existed on the property l*jca.. 1 southern portion of the property now to be combined with applicant ’s homestead pared fhe newly defined building envelope at the upoet elevations is severely impacted by the defined bluff and the 30’ setback from the top of the bluff. Review Exhibits G and H, the building envelope is approximately 100’ in length and for most of the envelope is 22 in depth. Planning Commission noted that the applicant had performed in good faith throughout this lengthy review. The option of denying this variance application was not even considered. Planning Commission members felt t^at if variances were to be granted to the bluff setback standard that it would be more appropriate to wait for a formal building plan presented by a ftiture land owner. The Planning Commission then referenced recent variances granted to applicants in the past few months dealing with setback variances to the top of the bluff. They concurred with staff that the defined building envelope should be included as an exhibit with the approval resolution for the lot area variance in order to alert a future owner of the uniqueness of this property and the special limitations on the building envelope (review Exhibits E3). Staff has prepared two separate approval resol-'f-ions for both the lot line rearrangement and the area variance. The resolution granting the area variance reterences Section 10.56, Subd. 16 G. J and I that deals with land alterations or construction within steep slopes, vegetation removals with special restrictions on removal of plantings or vegetation within steep sloped areas. Planning Commission was specifically concerned that future owner and builder for this property be alerted to the new restrictive standards developed in the code for construction on steep sloped properties within the shoreland area. COUNCIL ACTION REQLTISTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolutions approving a lot line rearrangement of the properties located at 1297 Wildhurst Trail/4620 Tonkaview Une and an area variance for Lot