09-12-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 3 September 8. 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street The property is served by municipal sewer and the three lots have been assessed a third unit for a total of one sewer unit. The assessment has been paid. The lot has steep topographies but not so steep as to suggest any difficulty in constructing a residence. Review Exhibits M and P. The Engineer has reviewed the preliminaiy drainage plan and reaffirms the use of underground tiles carrying drainage to the street and away from adjacent properties. The undergroufxl tile system will minimize the removal of trees on the property which would be the case if swales were to be installed. The Engineer has met again on the site with City staff to review any concerns with the proposed location of the driveway, Gustafson confirms that the percentage of slope will be 20% but sees no problem with the proposed location. In fact, it will minimize the removal of trees in the street yard. Review Exhibit E. The property owners at 594 Park Lane and 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane have raised several concerns concerning the accuracy of the current survey. Note the encroachment of the shed on the Laue property at 594 Park Lane. In the Wile memo of September 2, 1994, they note discrepancy in a setback shown in the 1976 survey and the current survey. Review the enlargement of that survey. Exhibit O. Note the setback is at 42.4’. The current survey shows that residence at 42.2’. Note the staircase and the upper deck at 41.7’ were not shown on the original survey of 1976. They are apparently later additions. Review Exhibit K. Note the survey of 615 Minnetonka Highlands is not an as-built survey but rather a proposed location for a house. Staff sees no concern with the issues raised by the property owner to the immediate east. As for the property owner to the west, the Laues had announced at the August 15th Planning Commission meeting that there had been some field survey work done recently that reaffirmed their concern that the lot line was not correct. Cn September 2nd. the Laues asked for additional time before the City made any final recommendations on the current variance application until they could provide an updated survey as their surveyor had been away on vacation and were unable to meet the S^tember 2nd deadline. The Etheringtons have met all requirements of the Planning Commission at their August meeting. Please review Exhibit O. Hiey ask that Council act on their variance application because of the time of year and the need to proceed with construction before the colder weather. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously voted approval of the renewal variance application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Legal combination of Lots 7. 8 and 9 prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction. 1