04-12-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. LA21-000022 ALLIANCE BUILDERS, 15 STUBBS BAY ROAD NO/ PID 32-118-23-34-0006, VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Efim Shukalovich, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Ms. Oakden noted the Planning Commission saw this property not too long ago. The Applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance and Staff recommends approval. This property received lot area, lot width and side yard setback variances in December 2020 (LA20-000071). That application established an 18.2-foot setback to the north, and a 15.5-foot setback to the south property line for side yard setbacks, addressing the neighbor’s comment to create maximum setbacks to the north at that time. The Applicant recently purchased the vacant property and is proposing to place the new home at a similar front setback as neighboring properties have and as the previous house footprint had but does encroach into required setback areas not previously approved. She said the Applicant is maintaining the same side yard setbacks but it a new house footprint so it is a new volume and house footprint within those required yards. The Applicant is proposing a rambler style home with a walk out basement. The new application is maintaining the side yard setbacks but a new home footprint within the setbacks is being proposed. That new footprint within the required yard is the trigger for the Commission’s re-review and this additional variance. The property is non-conforming with respect to area with 1.22 acres and in width at 123.77 feet, where the RR-1A district requires 5 acres in area and 300 feet in width, so it is substandard. The Applicant has identified the existing lot width as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Staff finds there are inherent practical difficulties with the substandard lot size and the building envelope of the property. She noted a lot analysis was done as well as an analysis of that side yard setback. Staff has found supportive findings for practical difficulty requirements and is recommending approval of the proposed side yard setback variances with that new footprint. She noted on screen there is an overlay where the yellow is the proposed house footprint and the blue was the original approved; the white is the overlap. Originally there was some approval of house on the side and the front and the new proposed house is pulled back about two feet from the original for the front yard, but they are proposing more massing on the north side and the south side with the wrap-around deck. Most of that additional footprint is to the rear of the house so it should not make too big of an impact from the street. The Applicant also reached out to that neighbor who commented originally and spoke with them about maintaining that setback. Ressler clarified the new footprint of the front yard setback is the trigger and asked if that is correct. Oakden noted it is the side yard setback. Ressler clarified and said they are improving the front yard setback. Oakden replied that is correct. Ressler said it is a substandard lot and makes the building envelope difficult to comply. Oakden said that is correct. McCutcheon said the Applicant reached out to the neighborhood and the neighborhood was fine with it. Oakden believes they reached out to the neighbor and if the Applicant is here, he can speak to that. Oakden did receive an email from the Applicant stating they had reached out and communicated with that northern neighbor. Ressler asked if any neighbor has gone on record with their feedback.