CC 10-10-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 10, 1989 Council Minutes, Page Three . CASE 1189-17, Planner Bergly noted that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. VARIANCES, Charles St. Sauver, 3435 Siems Court, requested a ten ST. SAUVER foot front yard and 20 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a new home on the lot. Bergly indicated that the existing home would be more costly to bring up to code than constructing a new home on the property, and that if setback requirements were adhered to, a 20'x20' home would be the largest that could be constructed on the lot. He noted that a normal building envelope would be for a 70'x77' home, but because of the topography, this was not possible and still meet setback requirements also. Bergly said that both the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission had recommended approval of the requested variances with conditions. Councilmember Hansen asked if the DNR Shoreline regulations would affect the placement of the new home and suggested that this should be checked on, since there are DNR requirements if construction takes place within 100 feet of a shoreline. After further discussion, Councilmember Malone moved, seconded by Councilmember Growe, to approve Case No. 89-17, granting a 10 foot front yard and 20 foot lakeshore variance to allow construction of a new single family home at 3435 Siems Court, based on the following: 1. The building envelope is substantially smaller on this lot than on typical lots in the City and would allow only a 20'x20' structure. . 2. More than 50% of the homes on the cul-de-sac have front yards and lakeshore setbacks that are equivalent to or less than those requested on this site. 3. The proposed home will be similar with other nearby homes in terms of height, scale and irregular placement on the lot. 4. Granting the variances will allow the new home to be located with less non-conformity in terms of side yards and lakeshore setbacks than the existing home. 5. The variances will not impair the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public, nor will it be contrary to the intent and purposes of the comprehensive plan or City ordinances. and subject to the following: 1. Approval by Rice Creek Watershed District, if necessary. 2. Underground burial of new utility lines. Motion carried, (5-0). CASE 1188-30, COOK Since this item had been before Council twice already, FINAL SITE PLAN! Planner Bergly reviewed the following items the PLAT APPROVAL Planning Commission discussed in their review and approval of October 4, 1989: 1. Approval of the building exteriors, elevations, materials and colors. 2. Building floor plans and bedroom mix. 3. Site plan approval. . 4. Public easement dedication of the trailway!emergency access path with mainenance of the trailway to be the property owner's responsibility, and contingent upon review and recommendation of the City Attorney.