05-15-2006 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

#06-3196 May 9,2006 • Page 5 Extinguishing the Special Lot Combination The 1994 Special Lot Combination Agreeinent and its 1999 anleiidmeiit will be fornially extinguished as part of this proposal. The original Agreement limited use of the Outlot to a dock, a lockbo�, and a stairway/boat lift/boat landing, and disallowed parking on the site. The amendment later allowed a limited parkiiig area to be established. None of the provisions of these two documents will be necessary once the lot line rearrangement re- plat has been coinpleted. Issues for Consideration 1) Is there any basis for granting a side or side street setback variance for development of the lakeshore lot(1401 Slioreline) once the combination occurs? 2) Given the background on 1401 Shoreline, the City concluded in 1980 that tlle lot was likely buildable and assessed it for sewer, noting that variances would be necessary. Does Planning Coinmission agree with staff that adding Outlot A ' enhances the buildability and supports the granting of the lot area variance? 3) Does Planniilg Cominission have any problem with reducing the area of 1391 Fox Street to 1.82 acres, given that the buildable area north of CR 15 is iiot changing, that the neighborhood density will not change, and that the land south of CR 15 that made it a fu112-acre lot was remote from the actual building site? 4) Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the average setback line proposed by staff? � 5) Does Plamzing Commission have any other concerns about the buildability of either of the lots in the post-rearrailgement condition? Staff Recommendation Staff recomniends approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement re-plat as well as the lot area variances required for both lots. Staff recominends approval of the revised average setback line for 1401 Shoreline that protects the existing lake views enjoyed by the adjacent property owners. Staff finds no compellin� reason for a side setback variauce for 1401, but would note that a much more rigorous submittal would be required for tlie City to consider such a variance, wluch may be left up io a fufiure buyer of the property. Staff finds that there is insufficient uiforination to approve a berm or screening . plan at this time, agaiii sometlling that a fuhue buyer inay wish to propose. Any reconunendation for approval should include the following conditioils: