03-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 2 t ft Relationship to Surrounding Development Noerenberg Park abuts this property on the southeast. To the west, north, and east of the site exist similar low density residential developments. The proposed subdivision is in keeping with the general character of its surrounding neighborhood. Lot Layout and Lot Standards Each lot meets or exceeds the 2.0 acre minimum lot standard for the LR-1A district. Lots 2 and 3 are cul-de-sac lots, being approximately 110' and 170' in defined w idth respectively. However, each of these tw o lots e.xceeds 200' in functional width and the City has commonly granted lot w idth for cul-de-sac lots. Due to the unusual shape of the site, the topography, and the location of septic sites, the lots in this *;uodivision are uniquely shaped. However, each lot appears to accommodate a suitable house location that is somewhat flexible with out encroaching into septic drainfield sites which must be preserved. Applicant's surveyor has depicted the required setbacks on the preliminary plat drawing. The setbacks shown by dashed lines appear to be correctly depicted. Lot 1 is technically a 'through' lot having roads on three sides, surrounding the existing house which w ill remain. Lot 1 will accommodate the existing house without the need for any setback variances. All other buildings on the properly are intended to be removed, so that Lots 2 through 7 will become new building sites. Lots 4,5, and 6 arc lakcshore lots, and each meet the 200' minimum w idth requirement as measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Note that Lot 6 has an hourglass shape that leaves a functional width of 165' at the proposed building site. The road outlot, Outlot A, has been extended to the southeast to provide a driveway corridor for Lot 7 without requiring direct access to Old Ciy'stal Bay Road. Staff sees this as a positive improvement, and recommends that this layout be accepted as providing suitable access to Lot 7. Note that while Lot 7 has 600' of frontage on Old Cr>'stal Bay Road, the City will require that all existing direct road accesses to Old Cr>stal Bay Road be eliminated. This likely will also be required by the County. Because of the 50 ’ proposed width of the access for Lot 7, staff does not consider Lot 7 as being a back lot, and it therefore does not have to meet the higher standards associated with back lots. In general the proposed lot layout appears to provide for sufficient building en\ elopes for each lot. and the only varian-es apparent would be for the width of the tw o cul-de-sac lots.