|
PC Exhibit D
<br /> � �
<br /> PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
<br /> 6. #12-3582 COLSON CUSTOM HOMES ON BEHALF OF BWB HOLDINGS,LLC,4731 '
<br /> NORTH SHORE DRIVE—VARIANCE—RESOLUTION NO.
<br /> Rodney Colson with Colson Custom Homes was present.
<br /> Curtis stated in 2006,variances were granted for both the sub�ec pro,perty d the neighboring property
<br /> �'. � �� �
<br /> to the east in order to approve a lot line rearrangement and vacation com�u�ing three lots into two lots.
<br /> The developer at the time intended to build two homes fQ�sale follow�ng the approvals. One home was
<br /> consiructed. Extenuating circumstances,most notably,�t�he`d�cline in tl�ie ho sing market,topped
<br /> developed. As a result,prior to the certificate of occu�pa�ncy;both��the�,�r,.�operties went into foreclosure
<br /> and were returned to the bank. In 2010,Bridgewate�Bank,�xhe v'�"'v,�er at the ttme,;renewe.d�fihe�006
<br /> ��`„' ��,� `�c ..- � �«,�,.
<br /> approvals in order to resolve the issues with the resoluttons,�'inaTi�rthe lot lm��xearrangem�nt,and sell
<br /> the properties separately.
<br /> � � �
<br /> At this time Colson Custom Homes,the applicant,wishes�t.�O;coras�truct'a�iqme with a nearly identical plan
<br /> as was originally approved in 2006. This plan requires lot area, lo,t�idtly,:sid�,street setback and bluff
<br /> setback variances. In 2006,hardcover variances were g anted. Howe�er,'due.to#he City's recently
<br /> revised hardcover regulations,the proposal fits�in�o the aIl wed 25 percent-��over for a Tier 1 lot and
<br /> a hardcover variance is no longer requested. `��:
<br /> . ��rv�����F��V���� 4
<br /> The Planning Commission,at its January meetuig,voted to re mmend.approval of variances allowing a �
<br /> 10-foot side street yard setback from the we;�st,lot�`wic�th-and lot�i.i:'ea,.,v,�,a�iances to build a single-family
<br /> residence on the property. Variances o the bluff se ack�and th�bluff impact zone were also
<br /> recommended for�approval as follows " � �� �'���
<br /> 1. The proposed patio to, e re�oriEnted so as to n encraac`h into the 20-foot bluff impact zone.
<br /> � �
<br /> 2. The pro osed deck sh�dbe reoriented and/or resized so that there is no more encroachment
<br /> into e�t'bluff setbac�than t a�of the home.
<br /> � �'� �
<br /> In 200 ,the submitted survey contained topo.gr�p"hical information that indicated the bluff was 24 feet
<br /> from�he corner of the p osed".hame,outside flae�bluff impact zone,yet within the 30-foot bluff setback.
<br /> The'xop of bluff was missmg om,the�current applicant's initial survey. The applicant has since provided
<br /> �revase�i.survey showing the to�of bl�'uff to Staff the day of the Planning Commission meeting. The
<br /> °Ynf�ormati n��eviewed by the Planiung�ommission at their January meeting was based on the revised
<br /> survey date�_1/�1:8/13 depicting��siinylar top of bluff location as the 2006 survey. The recommendations
<br /> made�Y�e P1an�g Commission were also based on the 1/18/13 survey. Due to the timing,Planning
<br /> Staff did n� ha�e=an opport�nit_y'to,+fully review the 1/18/13 survey.
<br /> � � -.�.
<br /> Following the Plan�uiig Coirimrssion meeting, Staff reviewed the bluff as shown on the current survey
<br /> and disagreed with its`de,�'picte�location. The topographic information provided on the recent surveys .
<br /> differs quite a bit from the-2006 survey. For instance,the slope on the western portion of the lot in the
<br /> 2006 survey is depicted as 20-25 percent,while the 2013 survey reflects approximately 50 percent slopes
<br /> in the same location. •
<br /> The location of the proposed home on the current plan is consistent with the 2006 approved plan. Due to
<br /> the other constraints of the property,the proposed location may still be the best option even though the
<br /> top of bluff appears to be as close as 12 feet from the proposed home in places. The 30-foot bluff setback
<br /> extends halfway through the home.
<br />
|