Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA22-000014 <br /> April 18,2022 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which 1111 <br /> the land is located.The unfilled hole supports the argument for deviation from the strict <br /> reading,as this condition is not found in the area. <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant.The proposed project to elevate the grade for <br /> the site to support accessory improvements is secondary to the main use of the site. <br /> The property has a home being constructed for use of the property. Staff finds this <br /> standard is not met. <br /> 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort <br /> or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the <br /> variance is contrary to the intent of the chapter as the property meeting the primary <br /> use of the home on the site. <br /> 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but <br /> is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.Granting the variance is a convenience. <br /> The proposed accessory structure improvements are able to be constructed on the <br /> existing grade which would meet the city code without the need for any variances. <br /> The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. <br /> Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the <br /> impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use <br /> permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. <br /> Engineer Comments <br /> 1. Drainage patterns appear to be okay • <br /> 2. Proposed retaining wall will need to be designed by a licensed engineer and reviewed by <br /> the City Building official . Wall with footing will exceed 4 feet and appear to be built on <br /> top of fill. <br /> 3. Erosion control plan should be adjusted to provide double silt fence above the wetland <br /> boundary. <br /> Public Comments <br /> To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the property have reasonable use of the site? <br /> 3. Can the proposed improvements be constructed without a variance? <br /> 4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br /> 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Planning Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff can support a variance to fill in the hole left by the previous owner to use the 956 contour <br /> as the estimated natural grade for the area. Staff is challenged finding practical difficulties <br /> necessary to support the raising of the grade 8 feet about existing, 'natural' grades. <br /> Planning Staff recommends denial of the average lakeshore setback variance. S <br />