CC 05-11-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Kiputes of Regulsr Council Keeting Kay 11, 1981 Case 81-11, Side Setback Variances - Lot I, Block 1 and Lot 19. Block 3, Ksrth Lake Eststes Council was referred to Planning Memo (4-23-81) and to a trans- parency of the area around the two coroer lots. Miller suggested separate Council action on each variance request because of the individual hardship circumstances sttributable to eacb lot. Miller explained tbat a 30' setback is requested from Ha.line Ave. on Lot I, Block 1; noted tbat tbe bouse across the street is at 20' setback; hardsbip on Lot 1 is the lack of an sdequate build- ing envelope if the 40' setback is enforced; noted that Karth Lake Estat~a was platted prior to the 40' setback requirement On corner lots from both streets. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals and Plaoning Co.misaion recommend approval of a 30' setback on both corner lots. Johnson moved, seconded by Bollenhorst, tbat Council approve a 30' side setbaCk from Hamline Avenue r.o.w. (10' variance) on Lot I, Block 1, Karth Lake Estates. Motion carried unanimously. Miller noted the existing setback on the corner lot across the atreet at 35' snd the corner lot to the south of the subject lot at 20'; noted that applicant is requesting a 20' setback on Lot 19, B lk. 3. Applicant said he has aold the house for this lot snd "csn live with a 30' setback from Pleasant Drive, rather than 20' requested. McAllister .oved, seconded by Bollenhorst that Council approve a 10' setback variance (30' setback from Pleasant Drive r.o.w.) Motion carried unanimously. Marcel Eibensteiner described a lake setback problem on Lot 40, Block I, Karth Lake Eatat.s; noted that the setback requirement, when platted, wsa 40' from the lake; current requirement is 75'. A plat of Karth Lake Estates was shown to Council indicating existing houses at lake setbacks of 40', 45' and 50'. Eibenateiner said that in order to get an adequate building envelope, a 50' lake setback is needed on Lot 40, Block 1. Council advised that, by ordinance, the varisnce procedure must be followed; suggested that if other problem lots can be identi- fied, should pursue variances for those at the sa.e time. ' Case No. 77-60A, Final Plat - Briarknoll Plat Two Miller referred Council to the Preliminary Plat of Briarknoll, showing how the second addition relates to the first addition. Miller reported that proposed final plat of Briarknoll Plat two is'in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Plat as approved and is recommended by the Planning Commission for approval by Council subject to the requested lot line modifications and approval by the City Engineer. McAllister expressed concern re platting of lots which are sub- standard in area, width etc., especially corner lots. Miller ex- plained that the developer has been alert~d to the 40' sideyard setbsck requirement for corner lots. Dietrich said they propose to reduce the access width (Briarknoll Drive to Outlot) to 25 feet, adding 12~ feet to the width of corner lots (Lot 1, Blk. 2 and Lot 5, Block 3) by sliding the lot lines of Lots 1 thru 6, Block 2 and Lota 1 thru 5, Block 3. Miller referred Council to Planning Memo (4-23-81) noting the Iota identified. as having dimensio..less than ordinance requirements. Miller reported that these substandard dimensions were identified prior to Preliminary Plat approval. In discussion, it was noted that resolution of the park dedication for Briarknoll First Addition and Briarknoll Plat Tw. is pending; also ownership and .sintenance of the outlot. Dietrich said he vas required to set this area aside for water storage by the City Engineer and lCWD; lCWD has a te.porary construction ease.ent now. -7-