Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1558 <br />August 17, 1990 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Staff would like to provide background on the current <br />application proposed by Mr. Zuckman. The City staff has been in <br />contact with Mr. Zuckman for the last year advising the owner to <br />file a development/improvement project for the property, as the <br />City staff was scheduled to commence hazard building action <br />before the end of this year. The cabins are in a serious state <br />of disrepair. In fact, in a earlier conditional use permit <br />review all structural repairs of the cabins must be approved by <br />the City. Guidelines were established that would prevent major <br />structural improvements if required. It was the intent of the <br />City to see this complex fade away. Staff would suggest it is, <br />but I have a feeling Mr. Zuckman would disagree. Mr. Zuckman has <br />exhibited good faith and has filed an application for a PRD of 4 <br />units. It will be the Planning Commission's responsibility in <br />this review to provide clear directions to the applicant so that <br />he may prepare for the filing of the formal PRD. <br />Staff has not really discussed the format of the PRD with <br />Mr. Zuckman, but it would appear that we have a potential zero <br />lot line dividion of residential units to be defined on the PRD <br />as a lot for sale and conveyance to a future owner. The <br />surrounding area will be shown as an open space outlet. It may <br />be appropriate that the access road and turnaround be shown as a <br />separate outlet, although this is not necessary. A shared dock <br />area would also be located on the shoreline portion of the <br />property within the open space outlet. <br />Issues to be Resolved - <br />1. Encroachment of 75' setback area by new deve 1 opment. <br />Planning Commission should provide clear direction to the <br />applicant as to the City's long-standing position as to <br />holding to the 75' setback line for new development. In <br />earlier discussions with applicant's architect, staff was <br />concerned that the 75' setback line was incorrectly <br />designated, but in later reviews, staff would confirm the <br />75' setback line is correct as proposed. There is a <br />reduction of existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone, shown in <br />the hardcover facts noted above. Planning Commission must <br />provide direction on this issue. <br />2. Density. Is a 4-unit attached dwelling realistic in light <br />of the directives of the code noted above? Under the <br />special discretion section staff can envision Council being <br />persuaded to consider an increase in density over the <br />allowed density based on the unique history and present <br />intense use of the property. Out code does not provide for <br />density credits based on performance standards under a PRD. <br />Would Planning Commission recommend 4 units as applicant <br />requests has proposed?