Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
FILE#LA22-000036 <br /> 19 September 2022 <br /> Page 5 of 6 <br /> IIIthe owners'property right. Staff finds there are alternative opportunities to expand the living <br /> space of the home which would be more reasonable and would not require a setback variance. <br /> 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, <br /> or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.The proposed hardcover level and <br /> setback encroachments requested are not supported by practical difficulty and may be contrary to <br /> the intent of the zoning chapter. <br /> 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br /> necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.The proposed massing encroachment of the roof <br /> reorientation within the substandard side yard setback and within the average lakeshore setback <br /> over the existing footprint serves as a convenience to the applicant as they have reasonable use of <br /> the property with the single family home.There are alternate methods of constructing the <br /> additions without such a severe encroachment. Further, a grade-level patio is permitted within <br /> the average lakeshore setback,the applicant's choice to propose a deck resulting in more mass <br /> within the setback is a convenience.With the applicant's building permit plan they have achieved <br /> a conforming hardcover level.Adjustments can be made to the scale/size of the addition to <br /> accommodate new outdoor living space/hardcover. <br /> The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions <br /> imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the <br /> variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district <br /> where such land is located. <br /> Public Comments <br /> III Comments from the public have been received and are attached as Exhibit K. Most of the comments <br /> received do not support the project. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in <br /> a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts <br /> created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Planning Staff Recommendation <br /> The applicant's plans do not show the existing home structure to compare the massing increases/changes. <br /> Staff requested an overlay plan for comparison,which was not submitted.Therefore staff is unable to fully <br /> evaluate the potential impacts. <br /> Staff recommends the applicant redesign the plans to limit or eliminate variances. Regarding the variances <br /> requested to permit the new lakeside deck resulting in 26.48% hardcover where 25% is allowed,the <br /> proposed garage addition (for RAS22-000126)should be adjusted to accommodate the additional hardcover <br /> requested. Planning Staff recommends denial of the average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover <br /> variance relating to the deck.The applicant has the option of reducing the hardcover and installing a grade- <br /> level patio without variances. <br /> . The side yard setback variance involving the roof expansion may be reasonable if the encroachments do not <br />