CCP 08-28-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

land from Parcel A and consolidate it with Parcel B. In effect, the adjusted lot lines would reflect the orientation of the dwelling on Parcel B, the existing landscaping, and thc previously believed location of the lot line. . However, the proposed lot split reduces the shoreline width on Parcel A from 95 feet to 75 feet. The minimum shoreline width is 85 feet. The shoreline width on Parcel B would increase from 44.5 to 64.5 feet. Since the shoreline width does not eon form to the Shoreland Ordinance, a varianee is required to approve this suhdivision request. Ifthe minor subdivision and variance is approvcd, Parcel A would become a legal, non-conforming lot. Parcel B is already a legal, non- conforming lot due to inadequate shoreline width; howevcr, the non-conformity would be reduced with this application. The lots meet all other requirements of the Ordinance. Parcel A does not have a completed dwelling on it at this time. The previous dwelling was demolished prior to submitting this application and a new dwelling is under construction. The accessory structure on Parcel A is a legal, non-conforming structure. The structure on Parcel B would remain on the propcrty. Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 06-021 and unanimously recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision & Variance based on the submitted plans and the following eight findings offact: Zoning Ordinance Findings: . 1. The proposal mccts or exceeds all of the requirements of the underlying R-2 Zone, including minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth. 2. The proposal does not meet the required 85 foot shoreline width requirement for lots on Lake Johanna. Parcel A would have 75 feet of shoreline and Parcel B would have 64.5 feet of shoreline. A variance is required to approve this proposal. Subdivision Ordinance Findings: 3. With a variance for nonconforming shoreline width, the proposal meets all requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Variance Findings 4. It is not practical to apply the full 85 foot lot width requirement for Parcel A and Parcel B in this particular situation. Sincc both lots are pre-existing, it is not physically possible to provide both lots with at least 85 feet of shoreline. 5. The circumstances arc fairly unique. There was a misunderstanding on the location of the lot line for a number of years, which may have led to the unusual orientation of the home on Parcel B that overlooks the land on Parcel A that has been maintained by the owners of Parcel B. 6. The variance is within the spirit of the Ordinance. The two lots are limited in the amount of shoreline and it is not possible for both lots to have at least 85 feet of 'iIMetru-inCI.USlardenhillslJ>11IIlning1P!aIlJling Cases',2006106-02/ Haglund Variance & Lo! Split (Ptjy'IJING)W80806. CC Report -Haglund Vaimncc &. Lot Sp/iufo<: Page 2 of 4 .