Laserfiche WebLink
Plaoning Staff RecomnicndHtion <br />Although the majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the large 0-75’ area and relatively <br />small 75’- 250’ area is a hardship to tlie property; StalT is not convinced that the level of 36.8% or <br />even 36% is warranted for this specific rebuild. Council should discuss the merits of this request and <br />reach a conclusion as to what level of hardcover is appropriate to the site. Staff also feels that Council <br />should review this proposal as a “footprint ” rather than a rambler or two-story, as either could be <br />constructed on this property. <br />Planning Department Staff continues to recommend approval of the average lakcshore setback <br />variance. Staff believes that the size of the 75’-250 ’ zone (7,673 s.f.) which at 25% would allow only <br />1,918 s.f. of hardcover, is an inlicrcnt hards.hip. fhe city has generally established tliat for very small <br />lots, the minimum reasonable garage/house footprint is 1,500 s.f.. It is likely impossible to construct a <br />1,500 s.f. house on this site within the 25% limit. I hcrefore staff will conceptually support a 1,500 s.f. <br />home with the minimal decks, sidewalk and driveway needed to support it, but we think this can be <br />done in the range of 30% hardcover, not 36%. We are not convinced that tlie 3'*’ garage stall is <br />necessary. <br />Council Action Requested <br />Options include: <br />1. Accept the current plan and direct Staff to draft a re.solution reflecting Council ’s action for <br />adoption at your January meeting; or <br />2. Reject the current plan and again provide the applicant with guidance; or <br />3. Other.