Laserfiche WebLink
0 Date Application Received: 07/21/2021 <br /> Date Application Considered as Complete:07/21/2021 '',L.O` VO <br /> 60-Day Review Period Extension Expires: 11/18/2021 <br /> To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members y A. <br /> Adam Edwards, City Administrator � <br /> 4kESHO'- <br /> From: Melanie Curtis, Planner 1VGG <br /> Date: 20 September 2021 <br /> Subject: #LA21-000051, Robert Linden Construction, 1074 Loma Linda,Variances <br /> Public Hearing <br /> Application Summary: The applicant is requesting rear and side yard setback variances to <br /> construct an addition to the home. <br /> Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. <br /> Background <br /> The subject property has an existing home constructed in approximately 1931 and a detached garage. <br /> The property has been in the family of the current owner since 1951. The applicant is proposing a <br /> project that will add a second story and rebuild the garage, and attach it to the home via a 141 square <br /> foot connecting addition on the main level. The existing home has two bedrooms and one bathroom, <br /> • <br /> all on the 2nd floor.The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the main level to accommodate a half <br /> bath, and construct an additional bedroom/office and bathroom over the new garage to improve <br /> function and livability. '945 <br /> 4444' .�--- - <br /> 9+19 <br /> The proposal reflects alterations I <br /> +95,7J `941 r-RFTWALL.94. .HT9 <br /> .950.+ 19.! f4.' -._ -. Nt. <br /> suggested by staff. The applicant 'L- > �3'. 9N5 <br /> ,I( .ut .94r,9.98911 ?Ys''V,M <br /> submitted a proposal in July which $°` ��'? ' s.° °"16 •H1.5 •",d <br /> M.Y .l HTI <br /> reflected a full storyaddition over the 7q� ' "�" " II <br /> i�.. �a YArpI L}!sr e_`_i`, u+ ,94.9 <br /> connected garage. After discussions ,,,,a 3 'A,0'"°- "- a I 4037 -'-- <br /> E <br /> with staff around the massing impacts .i' 4"•- "E' r §x , „ £„s, "% <br /> EXISTING GARAGE + %":2£L£VAl7.W <br /> of the nearly full second story within the <br /> substandard side setback,the applicant o f I tl`'X " 1074 LOVAEXISTING <br /> VE <br /> modified the plan.The overallpeak „• � '°° - "-, 22.2 j7(2'".' 5.° ~ + <br /> p a ,H1.5 ."�.. .H7: ...5 <br /> �� .® Ii <br /> height was reduced by approximatelytl v "'" N7 "'+ V ' R <br /> MN <br /> p 9+1.9 , ,F) , :; CGNCRtW Y'Au(WAYI• ' ( " W. <br /> .. '" •91&1 <br /> one foot,the garage door height was Z / —--r - <br /> •9477 1 •94,11 ''9/Se also lowered by one foot, resulting in <br /> the defined height beinglowered by1 4 .949' C4'NCRETE 'NAp(rNY CY' <br /> •9 • '�. <br /> g = ; !Water canto� �'i;16 '94.1 •94.7 9 <br /> foot.The applicant also reduced the H°¢ <br /> 9111 51 <br /> mass of the garage by reducing the • " •114+ •94, "' <br /> 9K.I <br /> dormers within in the substandard •9p +,`;' LINE!:: ;; "" 94990, •9 5 '"" <br /> setback on the north side which -J ""`° """ 94i ""' <br /> •945 9 .Hns <br /> "4" •911c .999.a `9 ^'I •9455 <br /> 9194` <br /> resulted in a 60 square foot living space <br /> 1_.9442 4k., –4lfA. _ .H5 <br /> reduction.The originally proposed a 24 T -- <br /> • foot-wide dormer has been reduced to two 5 foot wide dormers. A window has also been added to the <br /> main level on the north side of the garage to break up the wall facing the neighbor. <br /> The neighbor to the north also has a nonconforming detached garage closer to the street than the <br />