05-15-2006 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� #06-3196 , ° May 9,2006 Page 4 The shape and topography of the lot inay present soiiie litnitations or challenges in terms of house footprint size and shape, orientation and height of house and garage; however, staff believes that an architect coulc� coine up with a number of house pl�ns for tlus site that could meet the required setbacks, height and hardcover standards. Tlie site is not inherently Luibuildable without a side setback variance; it nierely requires a creative desigii. The sma11250-500' zoiie still has enough liardcover allowance that no hardcover variance should be needed for the driveway. The structural coverage allot�nent is more than adequate for a substantial footprint. Avera�e Setback. There is no adjacent developed lot to the iirunediate west, hence average setback is most appropriately determined by the setback from the lake of the oiily existing adjacent home. The home to the east is located approximately 140' from the shoreline; requiring a home on applicant's property to match this setback would preseiit a � significant hardship to development of the applicant's site, while not protecting any existing lake views enjoyed by the neighbor, due to the ct�rvatu.re of the slioreline. Therefore, staff would recommend that an average setback variance be gra.nted as pai.�t of this lot luie rearrangement approval, allowing an average setback line to be established from the S W corner of the neighboring home to the shoreline at the S W corner of applicant's property (see sketch). This will have minimal impact on the developability of applicants lot, but at the same time ensure that no lake views enjoyed by the neighbor are lost. N Screenin� & Berms. Applicant has suggested that bei7ns along the CR 15 frontage would help provide some visual and noise buffers. No berm plan has been provided. Staff would note that to maintain the required 3:1 sideslope, assuming the house is set at the 50' setback line, a berm as high as 6'-8' might be allowable along the CR 15 side of the home, although at that height it would eluninate any functional flat yard area on that side of the house. Any such berm proposed would be subject to review and might need a CUP if found to be unusual grading or if it exceeded 500 c.y. The City would likely reject any berm that blocks views of tlie lake from the roadway. Plat Required _ City ordinances do not allow the use of an outlot for building piuposes, heiice the proposed combining of Lot 1, Block 2, Dragonfly Hill and Outlot A, Blue Hill will require that the property be platted. Fiu�ther, the provisions of tlie Special Lot Combination include a clause stating that tlie terms aud conditions can be modified only in conjunctioii with a subdivision ul accordaiice with the plattii�g code. Lot 1 Block 1 Blue Hill does not have to be part of the plat. Note that park dedication requireinents for both plats were satisfied at they time they were approved (Dragoiifly Hill dedicated land, Blue Hill paid fee). Cotuicil will be asked to review whet�ier the Storm Water & Drainage Trunlc Fee should be assessed for either property.