02-17-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1110 February 11, 1987 Page 2 of 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Hardcover Facts Exhibit E - hardcover Analysis Exhibit F - Original Site Plan Exhibit G - Survey Exhibit H - Amended Site Plan The applicant seeks multiple variances to construct a new residence on an undeveloped riparian lot. Access to the lake will be on Smiths Bay. The applicant must be advised that a dock (accessory structure) cannot be constructed on the lakeshore portion of his property until a certificate of occupancy is issued for principal residence. As for the lot width and area variances, staff has little concern. The lot ^ is similar to the adjacent developed lots within Auditors Subdivision No. 356. The lot is certainly larger than the developed 1 acre lots^ in the surrounding Fox Hill Subdivision. There are no apparent physical features or recorded concerns for the property that would inhibit the development of the property. Access to the property will be via a City road. Heritage Drive, requiring approval by the Public Works Department. The sharp vertical elevations of the back along Heritage Drive may create a need for retaining walls but staff sees no major sighting problems at the southern edge of the lot line. A conditional use permit is required for all proposed accessory structures. The deck tennis court meets all required setbacks but the pool and portions of the wooden deck encroach beyond the average setback line. The application notes that the location of several mature trees provides a natural placement for the house. The pool is located to the front or lakeside to get the best advantage of direct sunlight. The pool structure will not create a view barrier. Staff has not received building elevations of the proposed house but if the deck is at grade, once again, there would be no interference with neighbor's lakeside view. Applicant should confirm design of deck area. Staff recommends approval only if deck is at grade. At the onset of this review. Staff has continued to advise the applicant that the side setback variances were not acceptable. Staff cannot recall when the City granted side setback variances in conjunction with width variances for undeveloped lots. On February 11, 1987, the applicant submitted an amended plan. Exhibit H, that would no longer require side setback variances. Mr. Martinson has asked that you consider both plans for this review and notes that the amended plan will call for the removal of the majority of the pine trees to the north. I