pf_01564 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

0' 0 CASE NUMBER: 1564-84 APPLICANT: C. R. Hakworthy Page 2 most lot (Lot 11) was originally platted as a 70 foot lot. It, however, is deeper than the contiguous lot to the north and deeper than most of the lots in the original plat. The current proposal maintains a 70 foot width on this lot, with a 75 foot lot in the center, and a 70 foot lot on the south. Most of the two southerly lots results from a division of the southerly lot (Lot 10) which was originally platted with approximately 135 feet of frontage. All of these dimensions regarding the frontage are measured at the building setback line which is 30 feet back from the public street right-of-way (Shady Beach Avenue). Obviously, the original platting of Lot 10 with 135 feet of frontage was considerably out of scale with the other lots in the original plat. You will note from the examination of the section map that other lots in the subdivision vary from 60 feet to 80 feet. Some of the homes in the subdivision occupy two lots or a lot and a half. 5. The minimum lot frontage for interior lots (other than a corner lot) is 85 feet, with 11,000 square feet of area. It has been the practice, as you know, for the City to allow the platting of lots at less than 85 feet where such lots are reasonably in scale with contiguous development in the area. Thus, it has been common in the past two decades to plat and replat lots where appropriate with lot widths (in many cases from 70 to 75 feet). 6. Each of the lots enjoys a fine view of the park (northerly portion) and the lake. The southerly -most lot, however, may suffer some depreciation inasmuch as it is contiguous to a lot that is zoned Single Family, but utilized on a non -conforming basis for quasi -commercial storage purpos s in conjunction with the business zoned property easterly of the property in question and Lot 9. 7. The proposal as currently presented is not fully a Planned Unit Development, but rather for a resubdivision of the land without rezoning. Thus, the indications on the preliminary plat drawing showing the potential location of single family dwellings on the property are not in question. The drawing represents an indication and an exhibit as to how the land can be used when platted as proposed. You will note, however, that there is considerable more detail relating to the proposed construction of the northerly most residence on the northerly --most lot. Thus, Mr. Hakworthy may intend to build this structure as proposed. The staff has not discussed this specific proposal with Mr. Hakworthy and members of the Planning Commission and Council may wish to discuss this intention with the applicant at the hearing. In any case, the development of the single family residences as indicated on the preliminary plat would appear to meet existing zoning and development criteria.