05-18-2020 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Date Application Received: March 18,2020 Date Application Considered as Complete:March 20,20201_O` 60-Day Review Period Expires: Extended to July 16,2020 To: Chair Ressler, Planning Commission members 11104,s., Dustin Rief, City Administrator 4kESHO4- From: Jeremy Barnhart,AICP Community Development Director Date: May 18, 2020 Subject: #LA20-24,Jay Nygard, 1380 Rest Point Road, Variances—Lot area, Lot width, Hardcover,Side Yard setback Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width and hardcover variances to facilitate a boundary line adjustment. The boundary line adjustment would decrease the width of the lot, decrease the area of the lot, and increase the percentage of hardcover. Adjusting the boundary line will reduce the non-conforming setback for an existing boat house from 6 feet to 1 foot. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the application as proposed. Background The applicant owns the parcels at 1380 and 1386 Rest Point Road, and proposes an adjustment of the common property line authorized by section 82-200 (4). Because the already non- conforming Lot Area will be reduced in size,the Lot Width will be reduced,the percentage of Hardcover increased, and Side Yard Setback reduced on the property at 1380 Rest Point Road, a variance is required. The non-conforming status of 1386 Rest Point Road will be reduced, consistent generally with the amount the non-conformity increased for 1380 Rest Point Road. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: It is the applicant's burden to justify the variance through the demonstration of practical difficulties. The applicant has stated that the request allows for a simple line adjustment to reflect the natural contour of the properties. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Reviewing the response to the practical difficulties in both exhibits B and F,Staff finds that the applicant has not provided adequate statements or information that supports the variance;the proposal actually increases the slope at the property line and significantly reduces the side yard setback for an already non-conforming boathouse at 1380 to maintain their boat house, limiting opportunity for that property owner to maintain the structure in the long term. The applicant's concerns with maintenance could be preserved by the granting of a maintenance easement between the two properties.