Laserfiche WebLink
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 />