Laserfiche WebLink
location of neighboring properties, and setback considerations were the <br />primary reason for the proposed layout and location of the home. <br />City Planner �eekman stated that with a motion to approve or deny the variance the <br />findings or reasons for the motion must be stated and if the Planning Commission <br />recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following iive conditions: <br />1. The proj ect shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as <br />amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these <br />plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and <br />approval by the Planning Commission. <br />2. Building, Grading, and Erosion Control, and Demolition permits shall be <br />obtained by the property owner. <br />3 o The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. <br />4. The applicant shall obtain approval or waiver from the Rice Creek <br />Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits. <br />5. The applicant shall submit a Shoreland Mitigation plan to the City in <br />accordance with S ection 13 3 0.03 Subd. 7E subj ect to the approval of the <br />City Planner. <br />Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions. <br />Chair Larson asked the builder if this house was designed specifically for this lot and if it <br />could have been designed to meet all the setbacks. <br />Mr. Bob Moser, owner of Moser Homes, Inc., stated the home was designed for this <br />specific lot and was modified based on the comments of the Planning Commission when <br />it was previously submitted and the new Shoreland Regulations that were recently <br />adopted by the City. The home is utilizing the current footprint. It would have been <br />difficult to design a home that would meet all the setbacks for this particular lot and keep <br />with the aesthetics of the neighborhood and still meet the needs of the homeowner. <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked what the square footage of the proposed home is <br />compared to the current home. <br />Mr. Moser stated the proposed square footage for the main level is about 1800 square <br />foot and the second level is less than this. There is not a significant gain in square <br />footage but the design of the home has features that the current home does not. He also <br />pointed out that the setback on one side of the home was being decreased from what it is <br />currently. <br />City Planner Beekman stated the current footprint for the existing home is 1753 square <br />feet on the main floor. <br />Chair Larson noted there is a two-car garage. He asked if this was correct. <br />