Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#95-3744 <br /> 10 June 2415 <br /> Page 4 of 4 <br /> vegetation on the property. The applicant has discussed with staff the9r desire to establish and <br /> enhance the existing vegetative screening on the properry. With the guldance of the Public <br /> Works Director the screening enhancements could possibly extend into the boulevard areas. At <br /> a minimum staff would suggest a landscape plan be provided for the Woodhill Avenue side of <br /> the property to mitigate for the proposed setback encroachment. <br /> Staff fincis practical difficulties exist to support redevelopment of this property, such as the <br /> substandard lot area and width which are not the result of actiflns by the landowner. The <br /> applicant is propasing to construct a new single family home which is reasonabfe and consistent <br /> with the comprehensive plan; the topography and wetland location drive the building site to the <br /> western portion of the property, where street setbacks have greater impact on building siting. <br /> The structural coverage proposed and all other applicable zoning requirements of the Zoning <br /> code have been met. The praposa) does not appear ta result in reduction of open space <br /> between homes nor does it appea�to be out of character with the neig�borhood; it appears to <br /> be consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan; and does not appear•to adversely <br /> impact adjacent properties. <br /> Issues for Consideratlon <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> subject property in a reasanable manner which is not permitted by an official <br /> control? Are the proposed setbacks reasonable? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this applicatlon? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, lot width, side street setback <br /> variances in order to redevelop the subject property. The City Engineer will conduct a detailed <br /> revfew of the appiication at the building permit stage however, recommends that the existing <br /> driveway location be redesigned to meet the code or a demonstrable difficulty be identified by <br /> the applicant for the Engineer to consider. <br /> In light of concerns by the City Engineer, should the Planning Commission support the building <br /> setback variance as proposed, staff suggests the applicant appropriatefy re�lse the site plan <br /> prior to placement on the Council agenda. <br /> A detailed landscape plan should be provided priar to the City Council's review of the <br /> application to assure adequate screening is provided and that the character of the finished <br /> praperty will be consistent with the neighborhood, <br />