06-08-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2340 - Rober & Iris Waade May 21,1998 Page 2 Brief Summary of Proposed Layout Lot 1 is the proposed lakeshore lot, which would have lake access. Lot 1 meets the area and width standards for a back lot, and the proposal shows a conceptual residence which meets all required setbacks and hardcover standards. The only variance involved with Lot 1 is in relation to the location of the proposed driveway, which does not meet the required 10’ setback from the east line of Lot 2. Planning Commission recommended a policy determination that would allow the stormwater pond in Lot 1 to be credited toward the 'extra 50%' area requirement for the back lot, similar to the use of wetlands for such credit in past plat approvals. Without such a credit. Lot 1 would need a lot area variance. Lot 2 is the proposed duplex lot, which would not have lake access (a covenant would be filed in the titles of Lots 1 and 2 prohibiting the provision of such access). Lot 2 meets the 0.5 acre area requirement for a duplex lot. Lot 2 meets the criteria established in the Zoning Code for a duplex CUP: it is located within 200' of a commercial zone, and is provided with City sewer. The proposed duplex structure on Lot 2 has been reduced to meet the 15% lot coverage limit, and the proposal meets the intent of the hardcover ordinance (some hardcover allowance transfer to areas further from the lake will occur, hence no variance is required). The required lot wddth for a duplex lot in the Shoreland District is 135'. Lot 2 only meets this standard if its east lot line abutting Outlot A is considered as front . Lot 2 is technically a comer lot whose short side would normally be considered its front; but Lot 2 is impacted by the lift station exception, and the east line of lot 2 will function as its front line. The total distance from the SW comer of Lot 2 to its SE comer, i.e. its total length along its south side, is about 150'. Its total abutment of Outlot A is about 145'. Staff and Planning Commission both feel that there is ample justification to consider the east line of Lot 2 as its front for zoning purposes. Outlot A is being platted as a 40' private road outlot, requiring a variance to the road width standard, but containing a proposed 24' paved road which does meet the paved width standard. Outlot A currently contains a narrow gravel driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be served by the road, it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de-sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require that a 24' paved road be constmcted the length of Outlot A, and at the north end connect to the existing private driveway system. All properties served by this road would continue with North Shore Drive addresses, and although this is an Urban area of the City, it seems appropriate that this continue as a private rather than public road at this time. The City w'ould require an underlying road and utility easement for Outlot A. Note that in response to concerns raised by the neighboring property owner on March 16, the