Laserfiche WebLink
D�te Application Received: 03-23-05 <br /> Date Application Complete: 04-11-05 <br /> 60-Day Iteview Period Expiration: 06-1]-OS <br /> REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> Date: May 3, 2005 <br /> Item No. <br /> Dep�rtment Approval: Administr�tor App►•ov�l: Agenda Section: <br /> Name:Melanie Curtis M(� <br /> Title: City P1aruler <br /> Item Description: <br /> #OS-3107—Natural Environinents Coip—825 Tonkawa Rd— CUP & Variance—Resolution <br /> Zoning District: LR-1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District <br /> Lot Area: 1.3 Acres <br /> Lot Width: 106' @ shoreline / 136' @ 75' setback <br /> List of Exl�ibits: <br /> A—Resolution per Planning Coinmission recomrnendation <br /> B —PC Action Notice dated 04-19-OS <br /> C—PC Memo & Exhibits of 04-11-OS <br /> Applicant is requesting the follo�ving: <br /> 1, A conditional use perinit in order to replace a rotted wooden stair system with lower glacial <br /> boulder walls, vegetation, re-grading the slope and the installation of a granite stair system. <br /> 2. A hardcover variance due to the change in the hardcover percentage proposed. <br /> Pl�nning Commission Recommcndation <br /> On April 1 S, 2005, Planning Cominission voted 6-0 to recoinmend �pproval of the hardcover variance <br /> and conditional use permit per the Staff recommendation. <br /> Lot Width Variance Requrred <br /> During the review process for the retlining walls and stairway, it has just recently come to light that <br /> the lot is substandard in width as measured at the lalceshore. Required lot width for the LR-1B District <br /> is 140', and an existing lot of record nzeeting 80% of the lot �rea and width standards is allowed to Ue <br /> residentially cievelopec�. The 80% of width standard for a lakeshore lot musfi be met 1t the OHWL and <br /> 1t the 75' setU�cic line. In this case, the lot exceeds 140' in width for most of its lengih, as well as at <br /> ihe building locltion, but narrows to 106' defined width at the shoreline, not meeting the 80% stlndard <br /> (106/140 = 76%). <br /> This lot h�s been vacant since 1995, and although the current property owner has made a number of <br /> inquiries lIl l�le la5t f8W I11011t11S about aspec_ts of building on the lot, the lot width issue was not <br /> discovered until ihis week. The lot width issue is in staff's opinion a technicality in this case; we <br />