12/12/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.,q, � NGGY 78 F'.k �F. 6O DEC 1i-; 3. The western portion of the applicant's parcel is large, approximately 53 X 660' (±0.8 acres), and warrants individual buildability due to its size. The only dimensional criterion it does not meet is the minimum 80' width required in the RS -3 zoning district. Staff's position is as follows: 1. As previously'stated, S.R. A.1.A. does not create two separate buildable lots out of each platted lot. S.R. A.1.A. traverses a single lot; one portion can contain the principal residence, the other portion can contain accessory uses (eg.: guest cottage, docks). 2. Adjacent to the applicant's property, two "half lots" have been developed as separate parcels. However, these are the only two parcels out of 84 lots where one half of a single platted lot has been separated -out as an individual buildable parcel. Thus, no compelling precedent has yet been set for the entire subdivision. The impact of changing existing regulations or granting variances must be considered in light of the impact of creating and developing more lots. The applicant's lot is large in area and apparently has enough uplands area to accommodate a separate and complete residence. However, the critical question is: should regulations be changed to allow more development on lots having a substandard width? Furthermore, if it is determined that significant lot depth can make up for substandard width, how much of the lot area should be required to be -uplands? What is the effect on wetlands? What will be the effect of increasing the number of curb -cuts directly onto S.R. A.1.A., especially curb -cuts that are ±50' apart? 13 . In relation to item #3, it is staff's opinion that : a. ±53' lots, outside of an approved PRD design, are too narrow for either the RS -6, RS -3, or RS -1 zoning dis- trict due to side yard setback constraints. Although residences are constructed on ±53' lots in the subdivi- sion, increasing the number of narrow lots would only increase the number of lots "too tight" to be developed in the manner of most other properties in the RS -6, RS-3,.and RS -1 districts. b. Trading -off lot width for lot depth (outside of a PRD design) inevitably requires a determination of a minimum lot depth. Lot depth in this area directly bears upon wetlands since the depth of lots include wetland areas and even privately owned submerged bottomlands. Allow- ing the creation of individual lots west of S.R. A.1.A. means that substantial residential development will have to be located adjacent to wetlands or even in some cases perhaps in wetland areas with mitigation. c. Increasing the number of lots will increase the number of driveways onto S.R. A.1.A. The subdivision ordinance prohibits the creation of lots which have direct access onto an arterial roadway such as S.R. A.1.A. Thus, allowing the proposed lot splits would go against a subdivision standard that should be applied to the request. Furthermore, due to the particular narrowness of the proposed lots, driveways would be closer together than normal, creating an undesirable traffic effect (more potential conflicting maneuvers in a short segment along a high speed roadway). The Board of County Commissioners, the applicant, and the Board of Adjustment each have alternatives that can affect the way Ambersand Beach subdivision lots are developed. - Board of County Commissioner Alternatives The Board of County Commissioners has two basic alternatives after considering the circumstances of the Ambersand Beach subdivision: 32