08-11-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f #0.U290I 412S Hlsbwood Road May 15.2003 Paged Bluff Impacts If the existing deck remains in place, it has a legal nonconforming status in regard to the bluff setback, as it was constructed in 1990, prior to the 1992 adoption of bluff ordinances as part of the Shoreland ordinance. If it is replaced, it will rennln> » van’an/'A tn om •_replaced, it will require a variance to the required 30‘ top-of-bluff setback requirement for structures. Hardcover Variance Propos^ hardcover in the 75-250* zone is 6.280 s.f. or 37.71 %. The applicant has included in his letter of request a number of factors which he believes are hardships that support the variance request. These factors include the ability to park numerous vehicles off of Highwood Road which IS very narrow and has only minimal ability for on-street parking. A hardcover variance was granted for the Site in 1990 resulting in a reduction from 43.6% to 43.0% in the 75-250* zone (Sec Exhibit The house footprint is increasing in size from about 1240 s.f. to 1600 s.f. While the new house is not excessive for the lot, the ancillary hardcover is the primary issue for discussion. It is staffs opinion that a site plan could be developed that would accommodate the proposed new home on this property without the need for a hardcover variance. However, that would require substantial changes to the character of the lot. and would potentially result in less off-street parking availability. Are these factors sufficient to act as a hardship? Issues for Consideration 1.Applicant has indicated that most areas of hardcover on the property are necessary either for vehicular movement, parking, or to deal with topographic features such as the retaining walls and 'valkways. It might be argued that the access to the site is inefficient in terms of hardcover usage and should be totally revamped as part cf the home replacement project. Applicant should be asked to define areas he may be able to remove hardcover to result in a rebuild that more closely meets the 25% limit... 2.Are the factors described by the applicant in support of his hardcover request sufficient to justify granting of the variance requested? 3.If the hardcover variance is approved, will Planning Commission be able to distinguish the unique aspects of this application from similar requests for rebuilds on similar sized lots? 4.Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the lot area nr average setback variances, or replacement of the deck in kind or in pny manner that ent ches within 30* of the top of the bluff? •