06-08-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i li f /r2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 21,1998 Page 5 Applic^t's engineer, Public Services Director and City Engineer to meet to review this issue prior to Council action on preliminary plat. 3.Need to address City Engineer's other comments in various review letters as part of final plat process. f 5X Planning Commission Recommendation On May 18 Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the plat and grant the variances noted above; to approve a CUP for the duplex use, finding that the :riteria for duplex CUP are met, and that the LR-lC-1 zoning would generally allow this 3-unit density if this had been proposed as a PRD; recommended a conclusion that the east line of Lot 2 can be considered its fi-ont line; recommended a conclusion that the stormwater pond can be credited toward the 'extra 50%' lot area requirement for the back lot; noted that only Lot 1 has lake access; and the approval should be subject to applicant resolving grading and drainage issues with staff and City Engineer. Staff Recommendation 1. The variances noted above are required regardless whether Lot 2 contains a single home or a duplex. These variances primarily relate to the size of the Outlets, and are a function of the site not having enough area to conform with the required outlet width standards. In staffs opinion, the impacts of the specific required variances are relatively minor . Ihg -C.UP for tb? bgrm at a 2-3* height sh ould be granted, subject to confirmation that a sewer easement is in effect. If something can be worked out between applicant and Lakeside, the City should allow the berm to be centered on the lot line. Staff will advise on May 26 whether a berm of greater height is feasible or advisable. 3. The drainage issues seem to be a stumbling block, in that there appear to be potential impacts to offsite properties even though applicant can adequately deal with the runoff coming from the pro^^^^^velopment. Study is needed to resolve these concerns prior to preliminary plat approval 4. This subdivision has been before the Planning Commission as a sketch plan in January, and reviewed as a forrnal plat proposal at the February and March meetings. Members of the public have been vocal in their opposition to the duplex concept (especially the rental aspect - see Exhibit D) even though the zoning code would allow a duplex at this location as a CUP, which is part of the request. Other than the Outlot variances which 11 be required whether or not Lot 2 contains a duplex, the proposal meets the CUP standards estL '■'.ed in the code for allowing a duplex, i.e. it's sewered and within 200' of a commercial property (Section 10.20, Subd. 31). Staff recommends approval of the duplex CUP.