02-13-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1334 January 12, 1989 Page 4 of 5 More Restrictive Building Envelope. T think this would be difficult for the developer to accept after our lengthy discussion at the Planning Commission meeting regarding building envelopes. The more restrictive the building pad, you encourage vertical expansion of the principal structure. Options of Action - To require no further restrictions fc~ the residential development of Pads 1 through 4 based on the following findings; 1. There is no sound environmental basis or unique physical characteristics of the subject properties that would call for special controls on residential construction. 2. Council's recent amendment of the PRD from 6 to 4 units along the rural residential boundary at the north will lessen the impact of the higher densities to the south. If the property was developed at rural 2-acre standards, development along the north property line at 1250 lineal feet could have been at 5 to 6 lot densities with a 50' setback for construction of a principal residence and an accessory structure at a 10' setback. 3. To establish additional controls for specific properties within a PRD will establish a negative precedent in the review of similar applications. 4. The additional landscape screening, fencing along the north boundary, the 100' wide no construction/no grading zone, and the reduction of units along the north boundary have already addressed the impact upon the existing rural residential neighbors. Visual impact concerns created by the mass of a residential structure has never been a consideration of the City outside of the historic and environmental concerns addressed in our existing code for lakeshore/shoreland development. To recommend the following additional controls for the residential development of Lots 1 through 3 or Lots 1 through 4, as follows: