Laserfiche WebLink
«05-30M 114S Sixth Avchttc North <br />Pchniary It, 2005 <br />Pages <br />Ifiuoh for Coosideration <br />1. Has the applicant presented hardships adequate to support granting of the requested variances? <br />If not, should additional design revisions be recommended to reduce or eliminate the need for <br />variances? <br />2. Will there be any impacts to the surrounding neighborhood if this request is approved? If so, <br />what reasonable conditions can be established that will mitigate those impacts? <br />3. Does the Planning Commission have any concerns about this proposal that have not been <br />addressed? <br />Staff Rccomincndatioii <br />Applicants were initially brought into this process as a result of a misinterpretation of the definition ofthc <br />*top of bluir by their surveyor. This ultimately lead them and their architect down a design path that <br />required what staff advised were unaccqitable encroachments of the bbifT. Since then, they have revised <br />the plan and shifted the house location to eliminate any encroachments of the bluffitself but still propose <br />encroachments of the required 30' setback from the top of bluff. <br />In past rebuild situations where site conditions related to the shape, size or character of the land, the City <br />has allowed some encroachments of the bluff setback. A recent example is 4753 North Shore Drive, <br />where a house setback of 15* from the top ofbluff was approved, in order to allow that 8,000 s.f, 50' wide <br />lot to have a home meeting the 1500 s. f stmctural coverage allotment. In that case, the bluffhad a unifomi <br />55*60% slope down to the lake, and special engineering was required after variance approval to ensure <br />the foundations remained stable so close to the bluff In the current situation, slopes downhill of the <br />proposed garage are in the range of20-25% for the first 20-30', then drop quickly at a uni form 50% to <br />the wetland. Slope stability for the garage here is less critical than for the North Shore Drive example. <br />In the current case, however, the lot is much larger. The City is requested to grant variances for a footprint <br />approaching 5,000 s. f on a buildable envelope of about 16,000-18,000 s.f, within a 3-plus-acre lot. Hie <br />portion of the lot that is buildable is small compared to the entire lot area. There certainly are topographic <br />constraints to the site. Nevertheless, staff is hard-pressed to find a conclusive hardship, given that a <br />multitude of different home designs could be buih on the site witliout the need for variances. <br />Staff recommends as follows: <br />1. Denial of the requested variances for structural encroachments of the required 30 ’ setback from <br />top ofbluff <br />2. Denial of any required variances for retaining walls or grading within 5' of the lot side lot line. <br />3. Approval ofanynecessarygrading within the bluffand bluff impact zone to allow for restoration <br />of grades after the existing home and garage are removed. <br />4. Direct applicant to re-design to eliminate any structural encroachments of the 30' bluff setback.